At what point does America decide it has no more use for the ongoing plague of police gangs?

I've rarely seen a more brain dead post! Did that take you hours to put together or did you bang it out in 2 seconds???

Please show what I said what was in error.

Of course you won't do so, because you cannot.

That's unnecessary.

Not.

what amounts to domestic terrorism and you post that?

You just ended up in a big bowl of failsauce!

Go back to your corner and play with your toys.

?w=485&h=327

social unrest. Find out who the mayors are and vote them out.
GO OWS..

Crime Inc., a place where fear sells, propaganda rules and the biggest criminals are never charged.

And magically live in love and harmony forever ever after.



Or you can use your brain and vote out the civilian bosses of the police.

get rid of law enforcement.

Use your brain and read before you just react.

"We need to come up with a different model for law enforcement that doesn't have American citizens getting their asses kicked by a police force that makes the Soviet Union's firepower look laughable in comparison."

...is your suggestion? What "different model" are you envisioning? I'd be interested to hear it because I never gave this any thought.

And CERTAINLY not a system where cops can be armed with this crap:

http://www.rt.com/news/weapon-us-microwave-cannon-363/

not a structural change, that's an equipment function. It certainly doesn't address the "gangs" issue.

The situation will definitely get much crazier once those "active denial" systems go into play.

I'm looking for suggestions as to what else we can do.

The Oakland Police, for example, seem to feel that they are not a part of the community. Thousands of innocent people come out to protest in a public place, and they panic. They seem to think that any large crowd of people is a huge threat. That is not true.

Sports events have been known to be far more violent than Occupy was prior to the excessive force by police. But we don't see the police controlling crowds at sports events with armored vehicles or machine guns or tear gas.

The LA police thus far have a greater sense of being part of the community. Of course, our politicians also are more accessible to us than are politicians in many other areas. That may be because we are strongly Democratic and tend to elect liberals.

I'm not saying that our police force is perfect. Who knows what they do in secret? And our sheriff's office is anything but perfect in my opinion. But our officers seem to be a big sight better than those in most other cities.

Still, even our police force is way over-armored. What in the world are they expecting? Armageddon?

There weren't any weapons in the LA Occupy community. There weren't any weapons in most of the Occupy communities, maybe even all Occupy communities were unarmed. I draw that conclusion from the lack of violence or display of weapons in the Occupy communities. Yet the police came armed to the teeth to evict non-violent protestors.

A police state? Sure looks like it to me?

The only place I have heard of this degree of armament for the police was in Nazi Germany, Eastern Europe and other Communist countries or certain banana republics.

We are competing for the top position among nations in terms of arming our local police military style. It's a waste of taxpayer money if nothing else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002463014

And dear God, the LAPD? They're one of the most egregious offenders of human rights.

Is that criminals are better armed than many militas. How is a cop with a pistol, or even a shotgun, going to stand up to people armed with ak47's?

But I don't have any numbers on how often criminals are using fully automatic AK-47s. Anybody?

http://www.ak-47.us/Crimes_with_the_AK-47.php
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/vixen_faces_rack_ruin_q5hnBQ1AlZJrIImUY4CHCP
http://decatur.waff.com/news/crime/63868-man-busted-meth-had-stolen-ak47-rifle
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/shooting-dc-cars-including-ak47

And getting rarer. In your most comprehensive link (the first one), you have fewer than a dozen instances, almost all of them dating from 15 to 20 years ago.

Did the assault weapons ban have something to do with that? I don't know, because I'm not a gungeon type.

Again, I think cops hype this threat to justify their ever-increasing militarization.

The cops are increasingly armed against increasingly disarmed people.

The dumb shits who stick up banks and 7-11's like cheap handguns. The drug dealers who own full-auto and semi-auto assault rifles, machine pistols, and the like use them to discourage ripoffs & cultivate a badass reputation.

They have rifles, fully automatic select-fire ones at that. M16A4 carbines, as a matter of fact.

And by the way, you do realize that rifles are almost never used in violent crimes, statistically speaking, yes?

to non-violent demonstrations. It is intimidating and chills speech.

"Is this what you envision?"

...you either misread my comment or intended this to be in response to the OP.

I said: I'd be interested to hear it because I never gave this any thought.

Do they need Riot Gear, Tear Gas , Bean Bags and Belly Clubs for peaceful protest?

A bit moronic, but OK.

Peaceful protest is met with riot squads, why? Can't they hold the riot squad in reserve? Thats Moronic, right?

...or hiding behind balaclavas.

Our police are too militarized, for one.

We also need a model with effective civilian oversight. Suggestions like voting out the mayor are not sufficient. We need things like civilian review boards, and politicians who don't kow-tow in craven fear of their employees.

Better training, better integration with the civilian population. If the firepower is really neded, make it less conspicuous. Work on crowd control technoligies that are safer for the crowds - should the Oakland cops have borrowed a foam generator from the fire department to clear the Occupy camp? (never mind if it needed clearing at all....) Do the cops have to win every battle Right Now? Here in NH, a smart US Marshall arrested 2 hardcore,heavily armed, "sovreign citizens" (Ed & Elaine Brown), without a shot fired - using paitence and gile. Down the road about 30 miles, a "regional" (wannabe) SWAT team turned a parole violation into a senseless execution of the kid's (blind drunk, .35 bac)father, and the shooting of a state cop. And the kid turned himself in when the cops showed up!

Normally, when British cops are walking their beats, they have only a small baton, their badges and their wits with them. And that's enough for basic policing. They don't even need guns.

It's only in the exceptions, such as a bank robbery, dealing with known violent felons, or terrorist attacks that they go and get their guns. And every time the gun is pulled out of its storage compartment in the trunk of their cruisers, it's electronically logged, and the cop has to do some paperwork to explain why he felt compelled to bring out a deadly weapon.

That's the mindset we need. Cops that use people skills, rather than using force as a first resort.

Well let's break it down.

In 2009, there were a total of 2.3 million arrests in the US for property crime or violent crime. I assume this is the type of crime you think we should be protected from (it excludes some other crimes, including drug possession or distribution).

Occupy has been around about 6 months. I don't know how many arrests there have been. Somebody on another thread said 6,000, which sounds high to me, but let's assume that's the number. In the same six months, going on the data above, roughly 1.15 million arrests were made for property crime or violent crime.

So that would be 1,000 Occupy arrests per month, compared with about 192,000 arrests per month for property crime or violent crime. Granted, there are far more people who commit these types of crimes than there are people at Occupy protests. But still, it's a pretty big difference.

I think it's tough to argue the police are 'more interested in going after Occupy protesters' than they are in going after real criminals.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_29.html

A budget breakdown from a large urban police force (New York and Oakland, for instance) wherein the amount of manpower (and thus the real money) is spent. How much time/money is spent infiltrating groups like Occupy or spent busting teenage pot dealers?

It's not uncommon for "rings" of nonviolent protestors to be majority-comprised paid informants and undercover officers.

There are serious questions regarding efficiency and purpose that the LE community needs to address.

Those are all discretionary offenses, in that police do them because they want to, not because anyone has filed a complaint, as is the case with violent and property crime, where there is a direct victim to complain.

By ending drug prohibition and replacing it with a scheme of regulation and control, we could eliminate all those arrests (and the costs they generate), downsize our overgrown police forces, and leave the cops to deal with drugs like they deal with alcohol: By cleaning up the messes.

Ending drug prohibitoin would also remove that inherently corrupt urge to bust people so they can seize their cash and goods.

I'm all for that.

That's why I excluded drug arrests from my post. Violent crime and property crime (much of which, to be fair, is tied in with drug culture) are the kinds I'd like to be protected from.

These special paramilitarized units were created for big city police departments faced with the occasional extraordinary policing situation, like a hostage situation or a barricaded suspect.

Now, they're everywhere, and they're deployed tens of thousands a time a year, often for small-scale drug raids.

It's fear-inducing overkill.

These were small-town cops, without much training - "led" by a shamefully inept county attourney. They were busting a kid for a parole violation - stealing a Nazi flag from his buddy (Idiots - but no more dangerous than most of the local idiots). And they were reluctant, but County Attourney Dumbass (this is not a libelous statement!) pushed them to go ahead, 'cuz he did'nt want the kid to get away.

I'd post a link, but the local paper went under. I had a clipping which I was retyping, but it got lost... If anyone wants to see it, I'll post it on request.

on fb, a friend, retired NYPD, posted about a NYPD officer who was arrested for drunkenness by an Internal Affairs NYPD person. The persons responding to the post were absolutely outraged. Outraged that one of "their own" had been arrested for being drunk on duty. When I questioned as to whether or not an officer should be held to the same standards and laws as "civilians", the overwhelming answer was that they should not and that the IAD person who had done the arrest was a scumbag. I then asked them why they thought they had no respect. There was no answer to my question. The problem, IMHO is that the police seem to believe that they are a law all unto themselves and should not be expected to obey the same laws that everyone else does. Not only that, but they will, more often than not, lie for each other and doctor the evidence. One need only look at what happened with that young man in Florida to see the truth of that statement. Police do not need military armor, nor do they need these new weapons that make persons skins burn or all that other shit. The rot is from within and the police will not and cannot be depended upon to clean up their own act, no more than the Wall Street types.

And many times, it's true. You fight one, you fight 'em all, regardless. Anyone outside the circle - anyone - is the enemy. A vicious beating is not considered excessive for the smallest of insults.

#!

With protection like this, who needs crime?