Originally Posted By: bill

Originally Posted By: JSOG47
Originally Posted By: FLGunslinger
Originally Posted By: JSOG47
Originally Posted By: FLGunslinger
Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA:











http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...crimemain_final

Overview

In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate.
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.)



How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights?


Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers?


When using excessive force against citizens; there are tons of examples if you would like me to post some I can. If you strip away all of the media hype, you basically had two wannabees that used a kitchen tool and some pipe bombs bought at home depot. But if you want to say "incendiary device" go for it. These two fools literally shut down a major US city.

One picture was from Boston, one from Ferguson.


Not saying excessive force doesn't exist. I'm saying equipment cannot use force, excessively or otherwise. Much like the shotgun in my closet cannot shoot someone without assistance. As a matter of fact that kind of logic is exactly the kind that the real enemy might try to employ to take all of our guns away.

Some cops are bad. Cops having access to life saving armor does not make them bad.

Home made bombs that kill and maim people are pretty darn incendiary. Ferguson and Boston are two great examples of the times you would like your local police force to be prepared to deal with extreme situations. Riot gear, armored vehicles and tear gas were the difference between the cops totally leaving or shooting rioters with real bullets and what happened in Ferguson. It wasn't pretty but it was the best they could do.

If your whole argument is you don't like the way it looks, fine. I don't like the way skinny jeans look on men, but they aren't, by themselves, infringing upon anyone's civil rights.


You can't look at any of this through the eyes of anything but what your training as law enforcement has taught you. There is no way I , nor anyone else , is going to make you see it differently. Your a good guy and you just want to get the bad guy. Methods we might see as intrusive you just see as an effective tool to do your job because your a good guy and would never abuse your power. I'm sure you wouldn't. It's the guys that would abuse it that restrictions should be in place for. Unfortunately, they would apply to you, too. The effective imprisonment of the citizens during the search for the Boston Bomber was done in the name of safety. The cops didn't think they were doing anything wrong but it was wholly unconstitutional. The show off force on the streets probably added to the citizens belief that the police had the right to detain them when it was a clear violation of their civil liberties. Same situation in New Orleans during Katrina when officers disarmed law abiding citizens under the orders of Ray Nagin. Just good guys doing their job. Unfortunately, those officers had no understanding of the Constitution but they were real good at following orders. They just weren't real good at following their oath.


Yes, I am a good guy. I'm also a reasonably intelligent, educated and occasionally sensitive human being. I have been known to change my mind when presented with a sound argument or hard science. I have not been brainwashed. I do not wholly follow any single ideology on any single issue. No training I have ever received as a citizen of the united states or whatever else I may be has had anything to do with arguing about the applicability of formerly used military equipment to law enforcement.

I will say again, allowing cops to be slightly harder to kill does not and will not, in and of itself, violate your civil rights.