This just means police have to buy those items on their own. Before yesterday, they could get all that through the government's 1033 program.

​Oh. My bad.

​Oh. My bad.

I'm curious to see the approval rating of our renowned president after this move. Before, he had the record breaking approval rating of 47%. 

What is with this President! Banning Tracked Armored Vehicles. How can you ban that when a lot if no all of Dept. don't use them? They use Armored Vehicles with the wheels that go round & round. Not damn tanks! And banning Camo, come on that makes you look bad ass.

 

#ThanksObuma

​I think you miss my point. Officers should not be told what tactics to use by a general public who neither cares for the officers lives, nor knows jack shit about how police tactics work or even law enforcement. Civilians who are shot or arrested are generally criminals, and although they didn't sign up for it, they choose to live in the country or state with such laws that they broke. If they don't like the laws, they can fuck off, but if they continue to reside in said area, they must abide by them, they simply choose to break the law, and the police, by law, must stop this. In no way should both criminals and the general uneducated and uncaring public be allowed decide what the POLICE do, because they know nothing about how law enforcement works, and they don't care about risk to officers. I understand officers who join the police accepted a risk, and so do they, but I find it heavily disgusting and disrespectful that people think the risk they take to protect and serve US should be increased because some fuckers who know nothing about how law enforcement or tactics work decide they don't like the tactics. It's disgusting.

Again: They took the job knowing that they were accountable to the public. That the public ultimately controls what they can and can't do. I really don't see how you can square "democratic society" with "the public shouldn't be able to control the police." Anyone with the view that the public, as a whole, shouldn't get to control the police has no place as a government officer.

It is absolutely not the case that the only people affected by police tactics are criminals. Police tactics affect everyone; unless you are under the impression that a cop thinking someone is a criminal means they are a criminal (which is wrong), police deal with people who aren't criminals all the time. For that matter, there are limits on the punishment that can be imposed on criminals; someone being guilty of a crime doesn't mean the police can do what they want.

You keep bringing up "why should uncaring civilians get to put police lives at risk?" Because the police are part of the government, and are subject to control by the people. If police aren't satisfied with civilians telling them to use tactics that increase risk to the cops, why should the cops get priority? Police officers not satisfied with their conditions of employment can quit and find a new job.

​Criminals *don't* buy .50 cal rifles. They don't buy any sort of rifle. Criminals buy pistols. Or steal pistols, sometimes from police officers. A civilian does not need to justify their purchase of a .50-cal rifle, because it's perfectly OK to buy a rifle to shoot at pieces of paper. Cops are spending taxpayer money. They are not allowed to buy weapons for the sole purpose of shooting at paper targets on a range, because that is not a good use of taxpayer money. Cops need to justify why, exactly, they need a .50-cal rifle in the course of their duties (note that police snipers tend to work from much closer range than military snipers), and are subject to the citizenry deciding that either yes, this is something police should have or no, that's not something that police should have. A civilian doesn't have the same factors, because the grounds for the general public to decide whether or not you can have a particular gun are much shakier.

On the matter of shootouts, the North Hollywood shootout led to both criminals dead and zero others dead. I see it a lot as an example of "cops need lots of firepower," but really? Patrol officers had pistols and shotguns, and managed to handle the situation well enough that no one died, while waiting for reinforcements and temporarily acquiring their own high-powered weaponry. Since then, the number of recurrences of that sort of heist has been zero. Newhall? Done with a pistol, and more to do with tactics than weaponry.

Incidentally, in a breakdown of the police-civilian relationship, it's not even possible for anyone except the police to be responsible. The police have to take the civilian populace as they come. If people don't want cops looking like soldiers (and there seems to be a definite trend in that direction), cops get no special say in the matter. If people don't like police tactics, cops need to change tactics. This could possibly increase risk to cops or the general public. To the degree it increases risk for cops, it's not actually too big a problem, because taking those risks is part of their job (if cops don't want to take risks, they should quit and become accountants). To the degree it increases risk to the public, that's for the public to decide.

So because cause pistols are the most commonly used firearm used by criminals you are saying that the police do not need to worry about any other kind of weapon? ​There are plenty of people out there with assault rifles and shotguns and when I come in contact with those people I would really prefer to have something to match what they have. I think there have been plenty of incidents in recent history that justify why police need most of the equipment they have. I can only think of a handful of items that I have seen a select few departments own that I thought was excessive.

As c13 pointed out, the North Hollywood shootout was not an example of handling the situation. The fact that no others died (several were critically wounded though) was a miracle. Maybe you haven't been watching the news but there have been plenty of attacks where assault rifles were used.

So your last paragraph says that the police have to listen to every single thing the population says? Why should they be micromanaged by people with no training or experience in law enforcement? I agree to a certain extent that community policing should play a part in what a police department does but it should not be the only thing. Sorry if this is the first time you are hearing this but there are bad things out there, things you cannot even fathom and sometimes dealing with it is not pretty. People have been watching too much TV, everyone thinks the police should do the things they see on Law & Order or Cops, that is not what reality is though.

 

​That's exactly what I'm saying. Police serve the public. They took a job knowing it would involve risk. If they don't like the tactics they're told to operate under, then they can quit. Currently, a fair number of civilians die, or are beaten/shot, or are thrown into cages, who did not sign up to potentially have that happen to them. Does that increase risk to cops? Possibly. Too bad. No one promised them it'd be a risk-free occupation (even though it really isn't that risky a job, compared to such things as construction work).

 

I have zero respect for any argument that tries to simultaneously claim "protect and serve is a way of life/police are these heroes for being willing to put themselves in danger for the public" and "police shouldn't have to listen to the public/reducing police risk is more important than public satisfaction with the police force." Police work is a job with conditions. No one made cops take the job. They're paid reasonably for that job. Their job is to take risk to reduce risk to the general public. When they try to pass risk off to the general public, they're no longer serving the public.

​Statements like this really piss me off. Yes, everyone knows the risks when they sign up to be a police officer but that doesn't mean they should disregard everything and give their life because somebody's feelings might get hurt. How much is the public (who knows jack shit about law enforcement or the law) going to dictate how a police officer does his job?

When are people going to be held accountable for their actions? The guy in Ferguson attacked a police officer and tried taking his gun (that was proven by forensics) yet it was the officer's fault. I think the real issue today is that nobody wants to take responsibility for what they did. If you are doing something wrong expect the police to come after you. If you fight the police and get hurt that is your fault, not the officer's.

Again: They took the job knowing that they were accountable to the public. That the public ultimately controls what they can and can't do. I really don't see how you can square "democratic society" with "the public shouldn't be able to control the police." Anyone with the view that the public, as a whole, shouldn't get to control the police has no place as a government officer.

It is absolutely not the case that the only people affected by police tactics are criminals. Police tactics affect everyone; unless you are under the impression that a cop thinking someone is a criminal means they are a criminal (which is wrong), police deal with people who aren't criminals all the time. For that matter, there are limits on the punishment that can be imposed on criminals; someone being guilty of a crime doesn't mean the police can do what they want.

You keep bringing up "why should uncaring civilians get to put police lives at risk?" Because the police are part of the government, and are subject to control by the people. If police aren't satisfied with civilians telling them to use tactics that increase risk to the cops, why should the cops get priority? Police officers not satisfied with their conditions of employment can quit and find a new job.

​The public do not control what they do, and should not. Police are given training specifically so they know what to do and when to do it. By giving the civilians the power to dictate what every officer does as his duty is insane, as policing can not be controlled properly by people who know nothing about it. The education system can't be run by those who know nothing about it, neither can the economy, and so on. The police should not be thrown into extra risk by unintelligent civilians who know nothing about law enforcement. Police are professionals in what they do, they go to academy to learn about how to be a cop, and walk the streets endangering their lives for people they don't know. Civilians on the other hand, have no police training or education, and can't be relied to select what tactics police use simply because they don't agree. Don't like the tactics? Boohoo, they're effective and they save lives, and anybody who would think that endangering the lives of officers further is an absolutely disrespectful fool. Approximately one police officer dies every 58 hours according to statistics from the Officer Down Memorial page. This does not need to become worse because some stupid civilian who knows nothing about law enforcement decides he doesn't like the tactics used by law enforcement. He is not the one risking his life, he is not the one under pressure, he is not being shot at, he is not making split second decisions and he is not the one protecting and serving others. Let the professionals run the police. Just because it's a democracy does not mean the general civilian population should have the ability to change any little thing about anything, it's outrageous to think they should be allowed freely increase the risk of death for officers, and then not have to take responsibility when a dedicated and devoted officer of the law dies at the hand of a criminal in possession of a high quality firearm who doesn't give a shit who he shoots. The police are trained in tactics and they make new, more effective tactics all the time and put them into practice. Civilians who know nothing about being in a shootout should not be given the ability to make up tactics when they know nothing about it.

​You listed the two cities that were destroyed by riots, what exactly was "peaceful" about those protests?

Nothing. I'm not talking about those protests. I'm talking about the peaceful protests. The huge amount of peaceful protests that go unreported.

I'm curious to see the approval rating of our renowned president after this move. Before, he had the record breaking approval rating of 47%. 

​He was also elected for president twice. So that's something.

Nothing. I'm not talking about those protests. I'm talking about the peaceful protests. The huge amount of peaceful protests that go unreported.

​Well, as you said yourself, people don't really want to hear about peaceful protests. If I recall correctly, in the past you claimed that you were part of a media outlet or something. You said that you only reported on what people wanted to hear.

​He was also elected for president twice. So that's something.

Not really relevant. He still has an approval rating of 49%, and you can't win a presidential election with 49% of the votes. I definitely regret voting for him, and I was smart enough to not make the same mistake twice.  

Not really relevant. He still has an approval rating of 49%, and you can't win a presidential election with 49% of the votes. I definitely regret voting for him, and I was smart enough to not make the same mistake twice.  

​Well he's not running again...and approval ratings go up and down. Its a silly point to bring into this thread.

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by Riley24

​Well he's not running again...and approval ratings go up and down. Its a silly point to bring into this thread.

​Not really, an approval rating is completely relevant; and it usually don't go up and down as much as it has for Obama. Obama's approval rating has remained at about 49% since he's been in office. It's always been a constant vast majority that don't agree with him. Not a good thing at all.

​Not really, an approval rating is completely relevant; and it usually don't go up and down as much as it has for Obama. Obama's approval rating has remained at about 49% since he's been in office. It's always been a constant vast majority that don't agree with him. Not a good thing at all.​

And you think that this new policy (that most Americans probably haven't heard of) is responsible for a 2% decrease in approval?
 

And Obama's approval rating is fairly standard, unless you have anything that shows otherwise..?

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by Riley24

And you think that this new policy (that most Americans probably haven't heard of) is responsible for a 2% decrease in approval? 

And Obama's approval rating is fairly standard, unless you have anything that shows otherwise..?

49% as a standard approval rating isn't a very good standard, I would think lol. According to this website, the average presidential approval rating is about 54%, meaning more than half. Obama's is 49%, meaning less than half.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx 

​

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by IntentionalDefiance

49% as a standard approval rating isn't a very good standard, I would think lol. According to this website, the average presidential approval rating is about 54%, meaning more than half. Obama's is 49%, meaning less than half.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx 

​

​Putting aside the entire discussion we could have on approval ratings, how is this relevant to this thread? 

​Putting aside the entire discussion we could have on approval ratings, how is this relevant to this thread? 

​It's not, lol. You were the one that made a comment when I said that I felt his approval rating might be slightly affected by this. :P You just kinda beat a dead horse when you responded, lol.

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by IntentionalDefiance

​It's not, lol. You were the one that made a comment when I said that I felt his approval rating might be slightly affected by this. :P You just kinda beat a dead horse when you responded, lol.

​Its just that you've brought up his approval rating multiple times in this thread...I was curious if that was relevant.

All I was saying was that his policies aren't usually all too popular. I was only saying that I wonder if this would be favored. That's all.. :P 

​Approval rating =/= popularity of policies. 

I would be shocked if this policy was unpopular among American voters. 

Edited May 19, 201511 yr by Riley24

As most people have been saying, "Thanks, Obama"...

Nothing. I'm not talking about those protests. I'm talking about the peaceful protests. The huge amount of peaceful protests that go unreported.

​While there were peaceful protests in both of those cities the fact that they were destroyed by riots goes to show that not everything was peaceful about it and the police were justified in their response.