I Said, Hey... What's Going On?

[J.T.]

2 hours ago, (BP) said:

I have a hard time believing they can be trusted with the equipment. 

I am an HU alumnus and I slept in a bathtub in a hotel room during the first night of the Greekfest riots of '88 where Va Beach cops decided that using tear gas on black kids would be preferable to just letting them party like white kids at Daytona Beach did, so I know they can't be trusted.

And just when I believe I am satisfied with my stance, I think about my kid brother huddled under the desk in his office with his students while Seung Hui Cho was gunning people down in the hallway no more than 200 feet from where they were bunkered in and wondered if tactically armed police ready to respond to the shooter would've made a difference.  One less dead person is better than one more grave to dig.

It's a really hard call.

Edited June 11, 2020 by J.T.

[Jiji]

This is long but a must read.

[Lawful Metal]

I think a reasonable reform that can be done is to abolish asset forfeiture.  It's legalized theft for the police, and that money that they steal is often used to buy ridiculous military equipment for police use. And to defend yourself against asset forfeiture is extraordinarily difficult and specialized.  Oh, and there's no exclusionary rule in asset forfeiture, so the cops can literally do an illegal search that would get shut down and does get shut down in criminal court and still be justified in stealing the money.  It's insanity. 

And I know defund the police is popular, but I think "Disarm the Police" actually makes more sense.  No more tanks and machine guns for cops!

[(BP)]

It seems like there’s a biannual discourse about asset forfeiture that goes nowhere politically. It probably has more bipartisan traction than most police reforms, so I’m still hopeful. 

[Tabe]

7 hours ago, Technico Support said:

When did every cop, even traffic cops, start dressing like the SWAT team?  

It started in reaction to the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997.

[Technico Support]

34 minutes ago, Tabe said:

It started in reaction to the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997.

Thanks.  I was under the impression it was maybe also caused, in part, by municipalities getting military surplus post 9/11.

[Ryan]

That's definitely made it easier.

[supremebve]

44 minutes ago, Technico Support said:

Thanks.  I was under the impression it was maybe also caused, in part, by municipalities getting military surplus post 9/11.

It's a combination of both of those and the fact that a large part of our economy is based on the military industrial complex.  If you live in the DMV, like a lot of us do, you'll know a shit load of people who work for a defense contractor.  Those companies that have billion dollar contracts with our government only exist to innovate new military technologies.  If they come up with something new, what do we do with all the old shit?  We can't give it away to anyone else, so we give it to the police.  

[Ryan]

It creates jobs~! Yeah, my cousin worked for Oshkosh helping make trucks and stuff, most of the guys he worked with were work-release felons and losers. He helps make fire trucks now. Wiring stuff I think. Considering him physically, I don't know how he does it, but whatever. He's former-Navy, ex-cop, ex-security guard. He's...different.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Ryan

[Jiji]

 

[J.T.]

14 hours ago, supremebve said:

We can't give it away to anyone else, so we give it to the police.  

DoD tends to sell it to the police.  The plan was to sell it to allied countries until they decided they wanted the best stuff rather than castoffs.  Saudi Arabia is not going to buy a surplus fighter jet.

Since we are a wasteful organization, it never dawned on us to wholesale de-militarize old weapons and equipment and use the recycled bits in new weapons and equipment.  The piles and piles of copper wiring and aluminum tubing just sitting around at Defense General Supply - Virginia waiting for someone to decide what to do with it have to be seen to be believed.

I'm not even going to talk about the surplus tank tread at Red River Army Depot.

14 hours ago, supremebve said:

Those companies that have billion dollar contracts with our government only exist to innovate new military technologies.

DoD is trying to get away from that and back to good old consumer driven product development, thank God. 

After the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System debacle and the hilarity of up-armored Humvees., someone thought it might be a good idea to once again start asking Soldiers about their thoughts about what new equipment should be introduced into the field.  Hopefully some good will come of it.  

The Army is still pretty horrible when it comes to new tech integration, but it's getting better.  

The fucking Navy though, holy shit.  Those assholes embrace new tech with open arms.  I am surprised we don't have the Helicarrier yet.

Army Future Combat Systems is full of new ideas thanks to the psychotic mother fuckers at DARPA.  There are already plans to spin up a full blown drone piloting program.

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by J.T.

[Control]

I can’t tell if everyone’s on the same page, here, or if I’ve just muted the accounts that are dissenting.

[Casey]

I don't buy the "meth heads with AR-15s" or whatever as the reasoning behind the police becoming more militarized in the past two or so decades (maybe longer?). To me, there's just no excuse. Why does my hometown, which is like 20K people, need a police department that has a vehicle that's resistant to landmines and shit? There are some local PDs or Sheriffs around the country - keep in mind, small towns - that even have grenade launchers. Why is that a necessity to combat drug addicts that may or may not have weapons, or domestic abusers, or whatever.

Here's a fun little link that shows you what military equipment and weapons police departments across the country have received from the DoD.

It's fucking insane. Some of these cities you'd think this is a warzone in Afghanistan, not Bumfuck, USA.

[Ryan]

Everyone seems to be in general agreement from what I can see. No one is muted for that's posting lately.

[Ryan]

3 minutes ago, Casey said:

I don't buy the "meth heads with AR-15s" or whatever as the reasoning behind the police becoming more militarized in the past two or so decades (maybe longer?). To me, there's just no excuse. Why does my hometown, which is like 20K people, need a police department that has a vehicle that's resistant to landmines and shit? There are some local PDs or Sheriffs around the country - keep in mind, small towns - that even have grenade launchers. Why is that a necessity to combat drug addicts that may or may not have weapons, or domestic abusers, or whatever.

Here's a fun little link that shows you what military equipment and weapons police departments across the country have received from the DoD.

It's fucking insane. Some of these cities you'd think this is a warzone in Afghanistan, not Bumfuck, USA.

Only a certain amount of stuff is required for any tactical response based on size of the area. The rest is just shit they want to have as toys to play with because everyone is insane. Google Michael Funk and Neenah for the absurdity of all of it around my area.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Ryan

[J.T.]

57 minutes ago, Casey said:

I don't buy the "meth heads with AR-15s" or whatever as the reasoning behind the police becoming more militarized in the past two or so decades (maybe longer?). 

Believe it.  You can thank folks like the bank robbers from the '97 North Hollywood shootout and homeboy from the Aurora, CO Massacre for the sea change in police armament.  If you think your Glock 19 and small arms rated vest is going to square up against a Bushmaster with a drum mag loaded with NATO 7.62, you've got another thing coming.  You may as well be using a jacket made of rose petals for protection.

It is the nightmare of every law enforcement official to run into an encounter where the criminals have overwhelmingly better firepower.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Is this cops need big guns mentality insane?  Yes, it is 100% insane. 

Why?  Because the police are not supposed to be at war with their own citizens.  Their job is to protect them.

1. The types of incidents where you would need to respond with that kind of firepower are rare.
2. You're not going to deter crime by possessing those types of weapons.  You're only going to respond to crimes after the damage has already been done. Think Sandy Hook.
3. You already have SWAT teams that are sufficiently armed to respond to these incidents.  Not every cop needs a fucking assault rifle to do his job.
4. Your policing culture is going to become more aggressive.  When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

We absolutely need to get away from crime deterrence and get back to public safety as the reason why we have police in the first place.

My blather on why privately owned assault style weapons should be banned may come later on.  I personally can't see why police don't unanimously favor gun control reform if they are so afraid of the weapons that private citizens or criminals might own and may used against them, but it's 'Merica and 4th Amendment and shit.

Edited June 12, 2020 by J.T.

[Ryan]

Personally, when I see a nail, instead of a hammer I like to use an anti-aircraft rocket launcher to make sure that motherfucker is nailed in, god dammit! AHHHH! I NEED MORE GRENADES!

[Technico Support]

45 minutes ago, J.T. said:

Believe it.  You can thank folks like the bank robbers from the '97 North Hollywood shootout and homeboy from the Aurora, CO Massacre for the sea change in police armament.  If you think your Glock 19 and small arms rated vest is going to square up against a Bushmaster with a drum mag loaded with NATO 7.62, you've got another thing coming.  You may as well be using a jacket made of rose petals for protection.

It is the nightmare of every law enforcement official to run into an encounter where the criminals have overwhelmingly better firepower.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Is this cops need big guns mentality insane?  Yes, it is 100% insane. 

Why?  Because the police are not supposed to be at war with their own citizens.  Their job is to protect them.

1. The types of incidents where you would need to respond with that kind of firepower are rare.
2. You're not going to deter crime by possessing those types of weapons.  You're only going to respond to crimes after the damage has already been done. Think Sandy Hook.
3. You already have SWAT teams that are sufficiently armed to respond to these incidents.  Not every cop needs a fucking assault rifle to do his job.
4. Your policing culture is going to become more aggressive.  When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

We absolutely need to get away from crime deterrence and get back to public safety as the reason why we have police in the first place.

My blather on why privately owned assault style weapons should be banned may come later on.  I personally can't see why police don't unanimously favor gun control reform if they are so afraid of the weapons that private citizens or criminals might own and may used against them, but it's 'Merica and 4th Amendment and shit.

Yeah, all this.  How many times will your non-SWAT cops have a shootout with heavily armed criminals in the next year as opposed to how many cops are over-armed?  The supply FAR outweighs the demand here.  All these gun nuts are living in an action movie in their heads. 

In other current events news, the country band Lady Antebellum changed their name because somehow they had no idea until right this moment that their name glorified the old south.  They apparently never knew dictionaries existed, either.  Their excuse was, "we named ourselves after the style of house where we took our original band photos."  Now you tell me, please, what band is going out and getting promo pics taken BEFORE they have a name?  Come on, son.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Technico Support

[Ryan]

Maybe they just changed it from a different name after the promo pics and they're really stupid as are their PR people?

[J.T.]

I am stunned that they thought that the word referred to a style of architecture.  No one takes Latin anymore. 

On that note, antebellum simply means "before the war" and that could mean any war.  Not a horrible term prima facea.

"Antebellum" doesn't get its negative connotation until it is used to ensconce the time period dating from the late 18th century leading up to the American Civil War.

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by J.T.

[Ryan]

What's Latin, is that a kind of bread?

[Ryan]

Yeah, as was said above, this doesn't seem too bright. "On the BBC Radio 2 Drivetime Show August 9, 2010, the band explained that the name comes from when the group did a photo shoot in historical costumes at antebellum houses." "The group formed when Scott met Kelley and Haywood in Nashville, and after a few months of performing around the area, they signed with Capitol Nashville in 2007" It's possible they were just touring without a name locally and doing photoshoots for publicity and are also really stupid.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Ryan

[J.T.]

10 minutes ago, Ryan said:

What's Latin, is that a kind of bread?

Gluten?

[J.T.]

3 hours ago, Technico Support said:

Yeah, all this.  How many times will your non-SWAT cops have a shootout with heavily armed criminals in the next year as opposed to how many cops are over-armed?  The supply FAR outweighs the demand here. 

I have been that civilian Logistics Area Rep at Camp Arafjan during OIF listening to the sound of Iraqi mortars going off in the distance and looking at the Beretta 92 on my hip and thinking to myself, "Yeah, if the shit hits the fan, that's not going to get it done," so I intimately understand the primal survival instinct that tells you to get a better weapon than the one your enemy has..

But I was in a real war zone.

The 804 (depending on who you talk to) is not a war zone.

The cop that might pull me over this afternoon for whatever reason does not need a fucking S&M M&P15 to enforce bullshit speeding laws.  Just gimmie my fucking ticket and send me on my way.... preferably alive.....

Edited June 12, 2020 by J.T.

[Kuetsar]

https://nypost.com/2020/06/10/ucla-suspends-professor-for-refusing-leniency-for-black-students/

Now I'm not trying to be an asshole or get myself banned(and if admins think this is too much I'll gladly delete and apologize) but can someone explain to me how this was racist? Unprofessional and being a snarky asshole, yeah, but I'm not seeing the racism. It may just be my lily whiteness showing again so I was wondering if you can explain it to me. 

As a side note, I'm not sure if any of my professors would have granted something like this, but I can see them considering it, or doing something similar( to altering the final). For example in both my grad classes this year my professors made concessions to the Covid crisis. . .