Democrats are starting to panic

#156
#156
utvolpj said:
You've never heard of someone talking about the demilitarization of the police?
Click to expand...
Yes but isn’t that usually in reference to surplus military equipment that has been transferred to law enforcement agencies?

I don’t believe they pay for that stuff. Maybe a nominal transfer fee.

So not sure defunding will solve that one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Rickyvol77 and dovervolz
#172
#172
Septic said:
The cams bit is a good start, couple that with a national database of sh*thead cops and a zero tolerance for civil rights abuse and now we're cooking.

What good is a camera if transgressions are whitewashed and the offender just goes to a new department; this while Joe Q Public foots the bill for compensatory damages.
Click to expand...

But how do you distinguish between civil rights abuse and and resisting arrest? Factor in a violent offender - potentially armed with one weapon or another. How do you restrain a George Floyd? Overall I agree (for a change) with your thoughts on much of this, but there are two sides, and it all changes when somebody resists. I agree most people feel powerless and that encourages arguing or otherwise fighting back because I think most people seem courts as a place they don't get a fair hearing - and certainly not without paying an exorbitant price for representation. It really is a multilevel problem and if the situation goes before a judge you can bet it's not a playing court that in any way favors the person charged.

The few times I've been stopped (involving a speed limit) have been cordial and generally professional, but I still had a sense of outrage over the difference between safe speed and an arbitrary speed limit. BTW speed limits went from "safety" to policy when gas was short (the fed mandated 55 MPH) and around Chattanooga when they were limited because Hamilton County failed air quality standards. So there is definitely a legislative issue also - too damn many unnecessary laws - or necessary but overly restrictive - or not for the quoted reason.
 
#173
#173
Vol423 said:
A have heard a few, and they're idiots.
Click to expand...

Why? Ever since 9/11 and the feds handing out military equipment right and left, it seems like the civil part of law enforcement has eroded, and we're seeing more a paramilitary us vs them kind of thing. Keep in mind, I'm an old white guy with nothing more than a traffic stop, so overall I have no axe to grind - just an observation. I strongly disagree with generally defunding or limiting the civil side of law enforcement, but the paramilitary stuff and the attitude needs to go. I still feel police are caught between overzealous legislators and courts that only protect rights at a high cost to the accused - address those issues and a lot of police issues go away.
 
#175
#175
AM64 said:
Why? Ever since 9/11 and the feds handing out military equipment right and left, it seems like the civil part of law enforcement has eroded, and we're seeing more a paramilitary us vs them kind of thing. Keep in mind, I'm an old white guy with nothing more than a traffic stop, so overall I have no axe to grind - just an observation. I strongly disagree with generally defunding or limiting the civil side of law enforcement, but the paramilitary stuff and the attitude needs to go. I still feel police are caught between overzealous legislators and courts that only protect rights at a high cost to the accused - address those issues and a lot of police issues go away.
Click to expand...
What examples of paramilitary stuff are you referring to? Like SWAT vehicles that are rarely used?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top