About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 4:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
With the WAR on drugs, what are we to expect?

Post 1

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 4:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have mixed feelings about this video. While there are legitimate grievances discussed such as the abusive school raids looking for drugs which I would agree are terrible, I don't get the gripe about using special weapons and tactics? Many many police officers have died in the line of duty, to expect police officers to come to a hostage situation dressed like Andy Griffith as opposed to suited up in full SWAT gear to better protect themselves and the hostage I think is an effort to make the police impotent. SWAT is necessary and as the name implies is usually only employed when the circumstances call for it.

Why are police departments arming themselves with M-16 assault rifles? Because criminals are with full body armor. And arming oneself with a glock pistol just doesn't cut it anymore. I'd like the video here to speak for itself:



Post 2

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry, forgot to add part 2



Part 3



Part 4



The rest you can find on youtube
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 5:22pm)


Post 3

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think the outfits are hot.




Post 4

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 6:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
SWAT is necessary and as the name implies is usually only employed when the circumstances call for it.

Bullshit - that is the propaganda.....  I suspect the reality is quite otherwise....


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Monday, August 6, 2007 - 7:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh really? Why is that propaganda? Did you ever hear of the North Hollywood Bank robbery where suspects were armed with full body armor and AK-47 assault rifles terrorizing a bank and keeping police officers only armed with glock pistols and kevlar body armor (which do not stop assault rifle rounds) subdued for almost an hour? It took officers borrowing assualt rifles from a nearby gun store to eventually take control of the situation.

No of course I wouldn't expect any honest rational assessment of reality from you Robert. Better to use the kneejerk "fuck da police" attitude and disarm the police and leave them defenseless against a well-armed criminal element.


Talk about emotionalism.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/06, 7:02pm)


Post 6

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, consider yourself complimented. Even though he apparently trembles when using the button for the full stop, you seem to have gotten an entire two sentences out of Robert.

I certainly agree that the police should have all resources necessary to their proper functions.

But consider just one story from my experience. I was living at the corner of 207th street and Brook Avenue in Washington Heights, working for a corporation with a local office nearby. It was my habit after the Simpsons aired at 11PM and 11:30PM to go to the Bodega before it closed shortly after midnight. Most of the inhabitants of the building were Dominican, and I was the only person of Northern European descent.

One night I noticed a strange white van parked at the corner, illegally. In the rear cabin through the illegally tinted windows I saw a small red light as one would see on a VCR. I thought to myself "I hope that's surveillance, and not a gun sight." The van was there every night for several days. Waiting for my boyfriend to visit (he worked the evening shift) I would look at the van from inside the lobby of my building. One Friday night, I ordered steak from the restaurant next door and just downstairs from my building. I exited the building and walked directly to the restaurant. As I did so, three unmarked cars sped up to the corner, and as I entered the restaurant door I heard the cops jumping out of their cars curse "He's on to us!"

These fools, if I can be so polite, had apparently been surveilling me and on no other evidence I can assure you than the fact that I was a white person exiting a largely Hispanic building.

Their "cover" being blown, the next day, Saturday, the van was gone. Sunday evening I walked two blocks to the ATM to withdraw money to purchase steak from the grocery store. I noticed something was amiss, and lo and behold, across the street from the bank again unmarked cars rushed me down, I was put up against the wall and frisked. I insisted that the officer not touch me, and tell me why I was being stopped. He said he had to search me (in jeans and T-shirt) as I might be carrying a weapon. He simultaneously said that if I told him where the drugs were hidden, he would just issue me a ticket, and not arrest me. I laughed.

This cop was a rather fat balding Irishman, in uniform. The undercover cops don't like to do the frisks. I told him to leave me alone, I would show him ID. I gave him my license showing my residence from where they had followed me. I explained to him how I had been the subject of their stake-out for a week. He apologized, and explained that he had been assigned to work with the undercover unit, and that he himself recognized me from the neighborhood, and that he thought stopping me was wrong.

I don't for a second believe that that cop had "stood up" for me to the undercover officers. I was made to look a fool and a criminal before my entire neighborhood. I spent the next two weeks explaining to store owners why they had seen me treated like a criminal. Luckily for me, the store owners are all minorities and understand that, at least in certain parts of NYC, it is shoot, beat, and arrest first, think later.

I have nothing against police officers doing their proper functions. I am distantly related to Daniel Faulkner by marriage through my sister. He was murdered by Mumia Abu Jamal. The police have a hard enough job without having to arrest non-criminals for non-crimes. Were narcotics not illegal, surely police officers would not have to fear attack from pharmacists with AK 47's and body armor.

Ted Keer


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is obviously a distinction that can be made here between the immoral war on drugs, and Special Weapons and Tactics employed by a police force. The North Hollywood bank robbers who fired 1500 rounds from AK-47s injuring dozens of police officers, were not engaged in any drug related crime while they were terrorizing that neighborhood.

I'm sorry but if anyone wants a volunteer police force, don't act like anyone in their right mind would volunteer if they were told they would be undergunned, and the best equipment available to save their lives would not be available.

Post 8

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, it's not an issue with SWAT, it's an issue that standard patrol officers are taught to treat every person on their patrol as criminals. Granted some thugs are obvious on sight, but just because someone looks poor by being a bit messy in their clothes and hair, or perhaps they seem odd shouldn't be cause to assume they're thugs. And more so, patrol officers shouldn't exude an aura of being superior to anyone else. When I debated (before being banned) from the Law Enforcement Forums, I pointed out to them that the citizen has less responsibilities than they do, and that they are beholden to the citizens, in that if the citizens at any time decided to form a common law court they would have to obey it and yield, or take off the badge. Their opinions stated that it was not the case. And that scared me. Why? Because the very foundation of our nation is common law. And that we as citizens can reform the government as we need (to dissolve it or to amend it as needed). These are the kinds of folks that would have been "red coats" during the American Revolution. They think law is the ultimate end of all things, not recognizing as Aristotle himself stated, "law is mind without reason," thus serving law blindly and without any critical thought toward any part being flawed or bad. Many even echo what many german officers did after the end of World War 2: I was just following orders. Sadly, they don't know that legally that is never an excuse for bad behavior or to ignore their responsibilities.

-- Brede

Post 9

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bridget I agree with you 100%. I only took umbrage to the notion given in that video that equipping police officers with the equipment they need to enforce the law is considered to be part of that "militarization" of the police. I don't think the video was being totally honest. The police should not be armed only with a glock pistol and a weak kevlar vest while being shot at with an AK-47. It would be like asking our military to face an enemy with jeeps and motorcycles while the enemy is equipped with jets and tanks.

Post 10

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, try reading some of Radley Balko's work on SWATs and their overamped, undertrained hooliganism, either at reason.com or at theagitator.com. 
 
SWAT is necessary and as the name implies is usually only employed when the circumstances call for it.

John, I would laugh at you, but your ignorance is to be educated, not ridiculed. I used to think that [about SWATs] too.  Again, look around for M. Balko's stuff and get back to me and see if you stick to that quote.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 10:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok, perhaps I spoke too soon about the number of instances and for what reasons SWAT has been used. I didn't make any empirical assessments on such an issue and I'll withdraw that statement. However....

I generally regard arguments that a particular governmental power ought to be abolished because they are being used in an abusive manner as untenable arguments. I don't doubt that SWAT can and has been an abuse of power in many instances (I mean the whole drug war is evidence of that). But it's a non-sequiter to say SWAT ought to be abolished because of any abuse that arose from it. The North Hollywood bank robbers were not subdued until SWAT personnel showed up to match the firepower the bank robbers had. That right there falsifies the statement "SWAT is not needed and is de facto an abuse of power". I can accept the argument only that it ought to be used more sparingly if you are saying it is used in an abusive manner. Otherwise why not just get rid of an entire police department from any instance of a police officer being abusive? Wouldn't you just rather hold the abusive police officer accountable?
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/07, 10:57am)


Post 12

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     'SWAT'-type police is a necessary unit...nowadays.

     Unfortunately, there as elsewhere in police units, there are too many decision-makers who are necessary only in being replaced.

     At least they're semi-local; consider the federal BATF.

     Anyone remember the hoohawra over the old TV-series? The group was likened to Nazi gestapos, especially their use of a black van.

LLAP
J:D


Post 13

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
At least they're semi-local; consider the federal BATF.

     Anyone remember the hoohawra over the old TV-series? The group was likened to Nazi gestapos, especially their use of a black van.


and yet - sort of  "like father, like son...."


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with John. The 'militarizing' of the police is about the government granting the police too broad of powers, not about the sophistication of their weaponry. When it comes to arming our boys in blue with the best in weaponry and technology I am a full supporter. These guys put their life on the line daily and deserve the best. But as I said, the weaponry and armor are not the culprit, it is the power that the government may grant to the institution.

Post 15

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 10:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's not the weaponry and technology of the police that is the culprit (if anything most local police don't have enough of it) rather it is the too broad of policing power that the government may grant to the police institutions.

Post 16

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 12:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Forgive me for taking issue with the "lives on the line" bit, but I'd hardly call knocking down doors on medical-marijuana growers and serving gambling warrants as "lives on the line"

Fact: most cops' lives would not be on the line if the criminals were not so vicious and well-armed.

Fact: the criminals are vicious and well-armed because of the windfall profits to be had as a result of prohibition.

Post 17

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 1:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steven, are you implying anytime police use SWAT it's for the purpose of knocking down doors on medical-marijuana growers and serving gambling warrants? Do you really think you're being sincere in saying that?

Are you telling me if we abolished drug laws, there will never be a situation where police require SWAT? If citizens are allowed to have assault rifles (which I damn well agree they should have them) then why shouldn't police officers?

Forgive me for taking issue with the "lives on the line" bit


Well that's a pretty flippant response. Do you think the North Hollywood police force did not put their lives on the line when two thugs armed with AK-47s riddled their bodies with bullets?

Why not arm police officers with only spoons?

Post 18

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 5:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

I'm not a cop basher by any stretch, but when a court orders an arrest for a no pay, no show parent on a support order, departments will order a SWAT raid on a guy who hasn't paid his child support.  No lie.


Post 19

Tuesday, August 7, 2007 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa I agree that's definitely overkill and not necessary. I mean I would think a knock on the door would suffice! For crying out loud you'd think they could just start garnishing his wage or seize some of his property if he owes someone money. But yeah to barge in with full SWAT marching in is insanity.
(Edited by John Armaos on 8/07, 6:22pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.