Militarized Police

[THall]

Officers involved in a shooting are always placed on administrative leave or desk duty until an investigation clears them. I'm surprised you're asking that question considering your husband's supposed contractual position. You're just not adding up. Another big shock.

You know so little
about police procedures
and policies, why do you
try and fake it? If you
have a question for me,
then ask it. The moment
you start pretending like you
are an expert, we are done.

I teach 7 different P.O.S.T.
certified courses to
S.W.A.T. personnel. Each
state has its own P.O.S.T.
agency that must certify a
course curriculum before an
officer taking the course can
be credited with the hours of
education. I have taught in
17 different states, and my
courses range from Precision
Rifle I & II to Patrol Rifle, to
Breaching to Intelligence Gathering
to Dynamic and Covert Entry, and Non visible
Optic technology.

Now, what do you need to
know about S.W.A.T. work?

BTW officers are not always
placed on leave if involved in a
shooting you are incorrect about
that. Some departments have a
policy that requires counseling before
returning to duty, and some states
require a Grand Jury investigation, and there
are many different procedures in between,
it depends on the state and agency policy and law.

 

[THall]

You're about as pro Police as you are pro law. Both irritate you something fierce. Big shock.

We are all irritated
by bad policing.
It makes good policing
harder to accomplish,
and undermines the trust
that the public has in
policeman, which makes
it very difficult to get jury
convictions.

There are
good laws and bad laws.
Bad laws have the same
ill effects as bad policing,
they turn the public against
police in general. You need
to show some maturity, your
all or nothing attitude is
fundamentally flawed and
shows your immaturity.

 

[IMJerusha]

You know so little
about police procedures
and policies, why do you
try and fake it? If you
have a question for me,
then ask it. The moment
you start pretending like you
are an expert, we are done.

I teach 7 different P.O.S.T.
certified courses to
S.W.A.T. personnel. Each
state has its own P.O.S.T.
agency that must certify a
course curriculum before an
officer taking the course can
be credited with the hours of
education. I have taught in
17 different states, and my
courses range from Precision
Rifle I & II to Patrol Rifle, to
Breaching to Intelligence Gathering
to Dynamic and Covert Entry, and Non visible
Optic technology.

Now, what do you need to
know about S.W.A.T. work?

BTW officers are not always
placed on leave if involved in a
shooting you are incorrect about
that. Some departments have a
policy that requires counseling before
returning to duty, and some states
require a Grand Jury investigation, and there
are many different procedures in between,
it depends on the state and agency policy and law.

Your big and bad is unnecessary.
I didn't need to know anything about S.W.A.T. work.
I am aware of the counseling and psych evaluation requirement in departments.
And isn't it odd how she logs off and you log on? lain: (That's rhetorical)
BTW, her husband thinks you're a fool....oh, that's you...nevermind.

 

[IMJerusha]

We are all irritated by bad policing. It makes good policing harder to accomplish,

Absolutely!

and undermines the trust that the public has in policeman,

It would appear that you and CW are doing your part to undermine public trust.

which makes it very difficult to get jury convictions.

Especially when they see and hear about Police contractors trying to use their associations to circumvent sobriety checkpoints. Of course, the fact that the jury selection process pretty much blocks pro Police jurors has something to do with it also.

There are good laws and bad laws.

You don't say!

Bad laws have the same ill effects as bad policing, they turn the public against police in general.

Intelligent people know that the PDs are not responsible for bad laws and poor legislation.

You need to show some maturity,

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing last night about you and CW especially as regards intelligence gathering.

your all or nothing attitude is fundamentally flawed and shows your immaturity.

When it comes to loyalty as regards the PD, you bet I'm all or nothing at all. One thing you will never see me do is stab officers in the back all the while I'm contracted to train them! Go have a nice chat with Jon Belmar or Jerry Lee about that.

 

[THall]

When it comes to loyalty as regards the PD, you bet I'm all or nothing at all. One thing you will never see me do is stab officers in the back all the while I'm contracted to train them! Go have a nice chat with Jon about that!

Honorable Policeman
do not support the shooting
of a mental health patient
with an A.R. 15, and
neither would I. The fact
that corrupt people like
you blindly support that
behavior is no testament
to your loyalty, just your
corrupt stupidity.

Training can only fix
so much, many bad
shoots are a result of
a bad person not being
weeded out early in a
flawed system.

Your corrupt stupidity
is noted though.

Did you actually have a
legitimate question or
where you just
posturing as usual?

 

[IMJerusha]

Honorable Policeman
do not support the shooting
of a mental health patient
with an A.R. 15, and
neither would I. The fact
that corrupt people like
you blindly support that
behavior is no testament
to your loyalty, just your
corrupt stupidity.

Training can only fix
so much, many bad
shoots are a result of
a bad person not being
weeded out early in a
flawed system.

Your corrupt stupidity
is noted though.

Did you actually have a
legitimate question or
where you just
posturing as usual?

Honorable Policemen don't attaboy lawbreaking citizens pointing firearms at their brothers. You're nothing but a terrorist working from the inside if indeed you are on the inside. At this point, I'm thinkin' not. I'm leaning more toward drop out or reject. P.O.S.T. certified trainer?...I really hope not.

 

[THall]

Honorable Policemen don't attaboy lawbreaking citizens pointing firearms at their brothers. You're nothing but a terrorist working from the inside if indeed you are on the inside. At this point, I'm thinkin' not. I'm leaning more toward drop out or reject.

You are a delusional
old lady who should
go back to making
pies. There were
hundreds of honorable
Sheriffs and policeman
who showed up to stand
against unlawful Federal Agents.

You are probably the only
one dumb enough to stand
with the fed crooks. Your
perception of L.E. is jaded
and intellectually dishonest.
In fact almost everyone of
your posts has something
dishonest about it. You
dishonor God with every
false accusation and errored
postulation you write.

 

[THall]

Honorable Policemen don't attaboy lawbreaking citizens pointing firearms at their brothers.

Nope they show up
with their own rifles
to point where the
BLM is concerned.

You are ignorant of
local police and how
opposed they are to
Federal policing and the
standing army being built
at DHS. Come back
to reality.

 

[IMJerusha]

Nope they show up
with their own rifles
to point where the
BLM is concerned.

You are ignorant of
local police and how
opposed they are to
Federal policing and the
standing army being built
at DHS. Come back
to reality.

Yup, I'm just so stupid and ignorant.

 

[THall]

Yup, I'm just so stupid and ignorant.

When it comes to
police work, you
really are. You
are out of touch with
the concerns of the
average policeman.

 

[IMJerusha]

You are a delusional
old lady who should
go back to making
pies. There were
hundreds of honorable
Sheriffs and policeman
who showed up to stand
against unlawful Federal Agents.

You are probably the only
one dumb enough to stand
with the fed crooks. Your
perception of L.E. is jaded
and intellectually dishonest.
In fact almost everyone of
your posts has something
dishonest about it. You
dishonor God with every
false accusation and errored
postulation you write.

You're standing in the fifth column. Poor you. You can call me anything you want but I'm not as old as you think.

 

[THall]

You're standing in the fifth column. Poor you. You can call me anything you want but I'm not as old as you think.

Gee whiz,
that sure explains
your detachment
from reality.

 

[Christian Liberty]

There it is again..."Your Government". I guess you're not a citizen of these United States? Seriously, you can not be taken seriously. A law abiding citizen does not require multiple officers to administer handcuffs.

I am a citizen of the US< but its government does not represent me. I imagine CW feels similarly.

If they are "propaganda videos" as you claim, why are the officers being placed on leave, and then prosecuted? I am pro police, and against unconstitutional police actions.

Can I ask why you are pro-police? Every single cop in the US, as part of their job, is required to enforce laws against victimless crimes. And, depending on how broad a view we take of the 9th and 10th amendments, unconstitutional as well.

I assume you see the issue with the fact that the US has the biggest prison population in the country. I assume you see the issue with the fact that somebody can go to jail for smoking pot and yet that the scumbags who beat Kelly Thomas to death still walk free.

Mind you, I'm not saying all cops are the same, but ALL of them have to enforce the government's laws or else they get fired.

I don't mean any disrespect to anyone you care about here, but why would your husband want to be a police contractor? And why would you want to be "pro-police"?

Mind you, I'm not saying to be mindlessly anti-police. I'm not saying to condemn every single action a cop takes indiscriminately. But I am suggesting that more often than not the enforcement class are the bad guys, even if they have good intentions (and I do believe most have good intentions.)

There are a number of ways you can make a difference in a corrupt government. You can try to educate people and expose them to different ways of thinking (This is mostly what I do.) You can run for office on a constitutional, libertarian, or similar platform and try to reduce government's role in our lives. You can engage in peaceful civil disobedience. Or you can even (I don't suggest this often, but it may well come to it as it did in 1776) revolt.

But, I can't think of any good reason to join the enforcement class. I know a lot of people say that Christian cops could make a positive difference. But, even if they aren't authoritarian fascists like much of the religious right these days (note that I'm saying this as an evangelical Christian myself, not an atheist who's on the outside looking in), what difference can they make? They do what they're told.

I recommend staying away from any of the branches that have to follow orders. Don't join the military, don't join the police, don't join the IRS. You can't make a positive difference by enforcing the government's will. There are better ways to make a difference.

BTW: I actually get quite excited from reading your posts. More people need to wake up and realize that something is wrong. Too much of the "right" just blindly cheers on the military and the police even knowing that government is bloated and out of control, and its encouraging to know someone at least knows there's an issue.

You are too stupid to see the difference. That is why these men get fired and or prosecuted, and yet you find nothing wrong with their murderous behavior. Not a single policeman I have talked to thinks killing that mental health patient in New Mexico was a good shoot, but weirdos like you will defend that kind of pathetic evil.

Frankly,there are a lot of stupid police worshippers who would defend that kind of evil.

You're about as pro Police as you are pro law. Both irritate you something fierce. Big shock.

What law?

Good laws or bad ones?

I recall to an MLK quote about a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. Does that mean that MLK was "anti-law?" Not exactly. There are good laws and then there are bad ones. States typically make bad ones.

You are incredibly blind here. Wake up and realize that something is wrong.

Now, anti-police, honestly, I wish CW would take that as a compliment rather than an insult. We should be anti-police to a certain degree.

It is not the Police video that is propaganda. It's the spin Police State put on the Police video that is. I'm not defending or protesting the action. It is the job of the Internal Investigations unit to sort things out and if they do not do their job to the satisfaction of the Federal Justice Department, they will take over. Neither you or I or Police State or any Police Officer not on the scene has all the facts and can, therefore, not comment one way or the other. Officers involved in a shooting are always placed on administrative leave or desk duty until an investigation clears them. I'm surprised you're asking that question considering your husband's supposed contractual position. You're just not adding up. Another big shock.

You're far too trusting

 

[IMJerusha]

I am a citizen of the US< but its government does not represent me. I imagine CW feels similarly.

Yes, it does. The Preamble to the Constitution spells that out quite clearly. You have a voice by those you vote into Congressional office. They are required to address your concerns and act on them. If you're not satisfied with the job they are doing, get off your butt and run for office yourself.

 

[IMJerusha]

I recommend staying away from any of the branches that have to follow orders. Don't join the military, don't join the police, don't join the IRS.

This is what permissive parenting has accomplished.

What law?

Good laws or bad ones?

The law on the books. You don't like them?...lobby to change them.

I recall to an MLK quote about a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. Does that mean that MLK was "anti-law?" Not exactly. There are good laws and then there are bad ones. States typically make bad ones.

I'm thinkin' MLK and his family really regrets any encouragement on his part to disobey the law.

You are incredibly blind here. Wake up and realize that something is wrong.

Duh! Lots of things are wrong not the least of which is the liberal agenda.

Now, anti-police, honestly, I wish CW would take that as a compliment rather than an insult. We should be anti-police to a certain degree.

Go for it! Lemme know how that turns out for ya. lain:

You're far too trusting

I know how to keep my nose clean.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yup, I'm just so stupid and ignorant.

Maybe not stupid, but undeniably ignorant. Your comment before on police not being responsible for the law shows a failure in ethics and history. Remember Nuremberg?

Not to mention, even legally, the cops have options. They can choose to take on productive careers rather than being cops.

This is what permissive parenting has accomplished.

What is permissive parenting, and what does this have to do with anything?

The law on the books. You don't like them?...lobby to change them.

Nevermind that there are too many laws to keep track of, some contradict each other, and most contradict the Constitution. And almost all contradict the very basic moral axiom of "Don't swing your fist at your neighbor's face" (otherwise known as "Proverbs 3:30.")

I'm not trying to put it lightly when I say this, but you have traded your allegiance to Christ for your allegiance to Caesar, and I am calling on you to repent.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying you aren't a Christian (that's not my job to judge.) What I am saying is that you are refusing to apply Biblical principles to police, and in doing so you have put Caesar above God.

Jesus tells you to love your neighbor as yourself, and to do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Say you're a cop, and the law tells you to bust someone for smoking a joint, or to pull someone over for speeding. What would you want someone else to do unto you? Do you want someone to aggressively threaten you because of peaceful actions you choose to engage in? The Bible is telling you not to enforce those laws, and yet government is telling you to do so, who are you going to obey?

Frankly, I think its a shame that we even have Christians in the police department. The idea should be as absurd to us as Christians who are prostitutes or homosexuals. Unfortunately, nationalistic propaganda has convinced you and so many others that we are the "land of the free" and that nothing is really wrong.

I know left v right doesn't mean anything, but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that since you identify with the right, you probably have a base opposition to big government.

So, why on earth would you advocate anyone joining the very same enforcement class that keeps that big government running?

Now, if/when the government returns to its constitutional limits, perhaps I'll feel differently, but until then, why?

Really, its treason, becomming a domestic enemy of the PEOPLE of the United States.

I'm thinkin' MLK and his family really regrets any encouragement on his part to disobey the law.

Duh! Lots of things are wrong not the least of which is the liberal agenda.

I agree, but the neocon agenda is essentially the same. And choosing to be a cop in a country that is being run by a liberal agenda is to make the problem worse.

Go for it! Lemme know how that turns out for ya. lain:

Go for what? Having an anti-police attitude? Is that a crime now?

Well, if the establishment had its way, maybe...

Heck, I'm probably on some kind of list just because I support Ron Paul. Oh well. I don't really care. I'll stick with what is right, because I fear God and not Caesar.

Yes, it does. The Preamble to the Constitution spells that out quite clearly. You have a voice by those you vote into Congressional office. They are required to address your concerns and act on them. If you're not satisfied with the job they are doing, get off your butt and run for office yourself.

Do you really even believe congressmen (as a group, I'm not talking about each and every individual, but the vast majority) care about you?

If you do you have passed the level of ignorant and would qualify as an ignoramus.

Do you really believe there is a difference between establishment GOP and Democrat candidates that is of any signifance?

If you do, you are ignorant.

I've considered running for office myself, and maybe I'll do so someday. I wouldn't win because most people don't want to hear the hard stuff (If they did, Ron Paul would be President right now and Obama would not.) Until then, I'll continue trying to change the world one PERSON at a time.

 

[quip]

Just curious but who do you call in order to belay an attempt at stealing your car or perhaps someone who's holding a gun to a love-one's head....Jesus?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Just curious but who do you call in order to belay an attempt at stealing your car or perhaps holding a gun to a love-one's head....Jesus?

What if that person is a cop?

Honestly, these days I might let the car go. I really don't trust the police. To save a loved one, yeah I'd make a deal with the devil. For what its worth, our house was robbed once and my parents did call the police but nothing was actually done. And even if the guy had been arrested, he had already spent the money he took and we would not have gotten it back. Instead, we would have had to pay taxes to keep that man up in prison. What good is that?

But really, the question is ridiculous for a few different reasons:

1. The small number of good things that cops do (apprehending thieves and murderers) don't justify the other things they do. Morality is deontological and wrong is wrong period.

2. Even when cops do deal with real criminals such as thieves, there is no compensation to the victims. Instead of making the criminals pay twofold or fourfold repetition to the victim as they should (both 2X and 4X were used in the Bible and I'd be OK with either one... something to actually make the criminal compensate the victim for his loss) we lock him up in a cage and force taxpayers (including the victim) to pay to keep the man locked up. What good is that for anybody?

3. Cops are required to uphold the legal monopoly on force. So, even if someone wanted to deal with a criminal without going to the police, the police would actually aggress against them to prevent them from doing so. Not to mention restrictive self-defense laws in many states. In many cases, the cops are the very thing that prevents a person from protecting himself against the criminal (doubly so when the criminal IS a cop.)

Please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE9_NsjbE-E . This should answer any silly "if it weren't for the police" objections that you may have.

 

[quip]

But really, the question is ridiculous for a few different reasons:

1. The small number of good things that cops do (apprehending thieves and murderers) don't justify the other things they do. Morality is deontological and wrong is wrong period.

2. Even when cops do deal with real criminals such as thieves, there is no compensation to the victims. Instead of making the criminals pay twofold or fourfold repetition to the victim as they should (both 2X and 4X were used in the Bible and I'd be OK with either one... something to actually make the criminal compensate the victim for his loss) we lock him up in a cage and force taxpayers (including the victim) to pay to keep the man locked up. What good is that for anybody?

3. Cops are required to uphold the legal monopoly on force. So, even if someone wanted to deal with a criminal without going to the police, the police would actually aggress against them to prevent them from doing so. Not to mention restrictive self-defense laws in many states. In many cases, the cops are the very thing that prevents a person from protecting himself against the criminal (doubly so when the criminal IS a cop.)

Please watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE9_NsjbE-E . This should answer any silly "if it weren't for the police" objections that you may have.

Some respectful objections:

1. First, you've seemed to place an inverse importance upon the "good things" cops perform daily...I'll simply serve this up as an unreasonable, and unsupported bias on your part. Second, while everyone is entitled to their opinion not everyone views morality as being deontological ...as there's pragmatic problems assuming such a b/w mentality.

2. Impractical. Most such criminals are desperate and poor.... likely drug-addicted and/or have mental issues (By what means should they "pay" reparations other than with their time?). As such, we must segregate them from general society by "locking them in a cage" ...which of course, isn't free.

3. What you're advocating here is - at worst - chaos, at best, a form of vigilante justice. Though I agree the current system is not ideal....your alternative is far more dangerous.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Some respectful objections:

I'll +rep this since you actually did answer respectfully and didn't simply resort to an emotional attack, as many do. We may get somewhere

1. First, you've seemed to place an inverse importance upon the "good things" cops perform daily...I'll simply serve this up as an unreasonable, and unsupported bias on your part.

I'm not sure I understand.

First we have to make sure we're on the same page, or at least a similar one, with regards to what actions are good and what actions are bad. If you actually agree with most or all gun control laws, drug laws, speeding laws, tax laws, and so forth... basically, if your philosophy is that people should be preemptively regulated because of what they might do in the future or because they might harm themselves, we're unlikely to get anywhere. If that's the case, I would like you to say so now so we can change gears and just debate whether that's a good idea.

On the other hand, if you're generally of the mindset (we don't have to agree on every single issue for this to work, but on a good chunk of them) that the government shouldn't be preventing us from harming ourselves but only punishing people who actually harm other people, we might get somewhere.

With that said, how many of the people that cops interact with on a daily basis are actually criminals? By that I mean murderers, kidnappers, rapists, thieves, and other people who use aggressive violence against other people. I think its a significant minority. The vast majority are violating laws where there is no actual victim such as a drug law, a gun control law, a speeding law (huge revenue scam) and so forth.

And that's ignoring the utter failure for cops to keep the "bad apples" in their own ranks accountable.

Second, while everyone is entitled to their opinion not everyone views morality as being deontological ...as there's pragmatic problems assuming such a b/w mentality.

Well, you aren't a Christian and so I can't prove to you that morality is deontological. But, think of it this way, do you think its right for someone to hold you up at gunpoint and steal your money because you drove faster than an arbitrary number on a sign? Do you think its right for somebody to hold you at gunpoint and steal your money because you chose not to "buckle up for safety?" Do you think its OK to drag someone away from his family and lock him in a cage for smoking a leaf? Do you think its OK to know that a fellow cop has committed murder and yet do nothing? Do you think its OK to drag someone away from his family and lock him in a cage because he owns an unapproved gun even though he has never used it in an aggressive manner and has no intentions of doing so? (I know you can't read minds but think about this logically, someone who is about to bust into a school with an assault weapon is very different than someone who likes to shoot it at the target range or keeps it in his house for defense.)

I think the golden rule is pretty universal so think about that, would you want somebody to break into your house and throw you in a cage for some activity that was deemed "illegal" even though you weren't harming anyone? Is it OK for somebody to do that to somebody else, even if they have a badge? I don't think so.

2. Impractical. Most such criminals are desperate and poor.... likely drug-addicted and/or have mental issues (By what means should they "pay" reparations other than with their time?). As such, we must segregate them from general society by "locking them in a cage" ...which of course, isn't free.

I can see how this helps something when we're dealing with a murderer or rapist who is likely to re-offend (Remember that I never said EVERYTHING that cops do are bad, just a lot of it). But with a thief? What does that accomplish?

Fines already exist, so fine the thief equal to double what he stole, only the fine should be paid to the victim and not the government. If he can't pay, put a debt on his head. If he refuses to pay, make him an indentured servant until he earns the money needed to do so.

3. What you're advocating here is - at worst - chaos, at best, a form of vigilante justice. Though I agree the current system is not ideal....your alternative is far more dangerous.

I didn't actually advocate anything. I'm just pointing out that there's no way you and your neighbors would allow a mass murderer to walk free if there were no police. However, the people who murdered Kelly Thomas are still walking free. Do you really think they would be if there were no police who would arrest whoever made the end of them?

Now, I'll note that we're dealing with an extreme case there, two cops who murdered someone with a video tape to prove it. I'm not suggesting that everyone should be handled in that way. I'm just saying that cops actually protect murderers at times.

I could get into the idiosyncracies of how anarcho-capitalism deals with crime, but its a little complicated and a lot of it is theoretical, so I'll simply say this. Markets solve problems and by nature they don't leave problems unsolved. I don't advocate the abolition of all laws, but I do advocate the abolition of a ruling class that makes itself a monopoly provider on dispute resolution. The State is the only organization that can claim the right to resolve disputes where the State is one of the disputants and not be considered a fool or a criminal for claiming such a power. Its time to grow sane, recognize that central planning doesn't work, deal with the fact that we cannot predict precisely how society would function without the State, and get moving to build the best society we can (and the way to do that is not to become a cop)

Hey, it was done with slavery in the past. There was a time when people couldn't imagine an alternative to that either.