Codz

​The point wasn't that it was news, it was to contradict the idea that FOX is a reliable news source.
Can't we all agree that all major news agencies have strong bias and we should only truly trust what we see for ourselves?

I actually beg to differ with you on this. RT depicted the Baltimore riots as America on its hands and knees. It also made Baltimore seem as if it was in some sort of military and police occupation. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the "Support Officer Darren Wilson" protests became city-wide riots, or actually had any problems at all. The people who started attacking cops and burning cars and buildings were people from the crowds of "peaceful protestors"
Yes, yes it is fair. If I punch a cop cause I'm angry my sister died it's still a crime, and its logical for me not to punch him. Just because these idiots rioting are angry doesn't justify unleashing on anything. It's better they unleash on riot cops than patrol cops, because riot cops are there for dealing with such idiots and are equipped to do so

​No, common sense is having that there to deter the criminals in the first place. The peaceful protesters shouldn't be deterred if they care that much about their cause, and the local businesses are reassured because they feel like the presence will deter their own livelihoods being looted. A city ultimately cares more about local businesses than the supporters of a local criminal.

​Wouldn't it be common sense to disregard the police gear and continue protesting the thing your'e devoted to protesting?

​It's not "lumping together." It's preparing for the worst. It's common sense. If a protest for Mike Brown routinely precedes violence, then it makes sense to prepare for that violence by having anything necessary to break up a riot in the area.
Should the police put all their gear away the day after 2 nights of rioting in case the rioters change their mind that night, then have to pull all that out from the station, prep it and respond to the scene only when businesses start to be ransacked?

​How do you think the police feel?  How come the protesters aren't sensitive toward the police?  Do you know how emotionally distressed police feel now?  They are scared to shoot or even subdue an attacking suspect with force because they know the media will give them hell to pay.  Police are people too.  I don't see police causing chaos when Officer Brian Moore was shot in the face and was killed.  All I see are cops trying to do their job to the best of their abilities.

​Because sometimes there is no other option. As much as police would love to go back to the days of carrying a handgun and shotgun around unfortunately it has been proven that the world has become increasingly more dangerous and these are the tools they need to perform their duties.

​As BlackJesus1 said, violence is actually on a sharp decrease in the United States. Every country has different crime because every country is different. As I've said before, what American police may fear is something that police in France may not even think about. Police should always try their best to keep the peace, but that doesn't mean that police should just sit by and take it up the butt. If a crime is committed, then the criminal is going to suffer the consequences. If large groups of people decide to commit crime, then they'll be dispersed and punished accordingly. Sometimes the problem to solving crime isn't as easy as changing something, and most of the time it isn't. The United States has a history of devastating riots. I previously mentioned the 98' riots, 50 people were killed during those riots. The National Guard was called in. The Ferguson riots, the National Guard was called in because the Chief of Police said that the department could not contain the riots. The National Guard was shot at. If the police were able to contain the 98' riots, 50 people probably wouldn't have been killed. If the police were able to contain the Ferguson riots, the Chief of Police for Ferguson wouldn't have said, "We are not able to contain the rioting", and the National Guard wouldn't have been called in. What police do in other countries is irrelevant to what police should do here in the United States. Police here will do what they feel is necessary, and if they think that an armored car is necessary, then more power to them. At the end of the day, we have to continue to live here in the United States, not those of you outside of the United States saying that the equipment they use isn't necessary. It's not like the police are programmed robots designed to murder innocent people left and right. They have families, friends, homes, children, and lives as well. At the end of the day, most of them only want what the people want. A peaceful, safe, and friendly environment; and when you have people setting things on fire, it becomes less and less possible. If an armored truck is the quickest and easiest way to help bring peace, then send in two of em'.

​Well things are already in place to decrease violent acts by cops(though it's been decreasing, even way before this police brutality "trend"). I don't think there's anything you can do to proactively decrease violence among citizens. People will be people, and I honestly believe that America will never be as peaceful as it should be. Like your country for example

I would not say plenty of instances. If you look at the big picture the number of cases of police using excessive force is very small compared to the overall picture. And like you said, there is no evidence of the police using undercover officers to incite violence and until such evidence comes out I have a hard time believing that. Why would the police put themselves in more danger than they already are? The only thing undercover officers are used for in a protest or riot is to find who the leaders are and who is inciting violence so those people can be targeted and stopped.​
Unfortunately I think your definition of "peaceful protesters" is way different than mine. The people in Baltimore are not peaceful protesters and many of the protests that everyone saw on the news in Ferguson were not peaceful protesters. As I said before, there were peaceful protesters in both cities but that is not what we saw on the news and that is not what is shown on either of the videos you posted. Those were people breaking the law and when the police showed up the protesters resisted. Do we really live in a world where you can complain about being arrested by the police after you broke the law and resisted them? I really hope not.
 
So you are saying the police should show up with nothing and hope that they don't need it? If I was a business owner or this was happening where I lived I would not want the police to wait for people to start destroying my property and my neighborhood before doing something. It is called being proactive and it is part of police work. If the police sat around all day waiting for things to happen then our country would be a lot worse. Do you use the same logic for burglars? If a guy is walking through a neighborhood and sees a police car does that make him want to break into a house? And as far as your last comment goes, yes that is pretty much how a riot usually starts. One or a handful of people will take part in a protest and feed off the emotions of the protesters to encourage people to take part in illegal activities.
 
​Typically what happens in these situations is protesters will see police officers and want to take out their frustration and rage on them. The police will stand there and take this verbal abuse, the protesters will get more and more frustrated that their verbal attacks are not phasing the officers so they will start throwing stuff at them, that is when the police start detaining people. And yes, it is often violent but that is because people resist arrest. Sorry to burst your bubble, but arresting people who are fighting you is violent. It is only violent because the person being arrested is resisting. You rarely see people cooperating getting their ass beat by police. You would not believe the things the police have been putting up with during these protests. There was a video showing police officers standing calmly in a line while people got in their face and called them every name in the book. In the video there was even a black police lieutenant escorting the protesters as they marched through the streets while people from that same protest were calling him a sell out to the system and saying that his kids should be ashamed of him, but he just kept walking and making sure that their march could keep going. Of course after spending 20 minutes searching for the video again I could not find it because nobody wants to see that, it goes against what they want to believe. They only want to see police "abusing" people.

This is not the case. Protestors begin disrupting the peace and acting out of line, acting unlawfully. Now, the police officer's creed states that "By law I cannot walk away." This is true, by law a police officer cannot let a lawbreaker go if he is present to see the crime or has sufficient evidence, unless ordered to let them go by higher ups. Police officers are obliged to arrest these lawbreakers, and since a large majority of those in these protests can't understand the simple idea of not breaking the law, they start attacking cops, destroying property, etc. The police are completely justified in their actions in this regard. Cops don't violentky detain someone unless they resist, which they do, and suddenly the crowd of idiots who can't keep in their pent up frustration start swarming and attacking cops, so cops respond with quick use of force and calls for backup, because they very well fear for their lives.
Not when it is entirely useless and when the term "civil disobedience" gets used as a way to justify attacking cops and destroying property, no. Civil Disobedience is generally illegal, that's the point of it. People can't sem to understand that they need to take responsibility for their actions
 

I think you need to realise that while it is your right to go out and protest, you cannot simply gather a large group and March down the freeway or into any area. Appropriate authorities must be notified of the protest, otherwise it will be deemed an illegal gathering and dispersed with force if necessary. It's been said already, everyone's all up about their rights, but few actually know them

​Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what happened in Baltimore pretty much? I don't remember the police using any tear gas or batons until those teenagers started the riot after Gray's funeral. The protests and police response were very peaceful imo, up to that point. Again, I could be wrong

You seem to forget that civil disobedience isn't necessarily legal. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully defying a law or regulation that you deem inappropriate or wrong. This can include being naked on your front porch, or walking down the middle of the street. It's still against the law, and you'll be dealt with accordingly 

The bottom line is if a protest turns to a violent riot, force must be met with force.  http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1435846/baltimore-riots.jpg?w=736

​The only time they responded that way is if the protest got out of hand or if it was an unlawful assembly. I know everyone today thinks they are entitled to do whatever they want but that is not how it works. If you decide to start marching hundreds of people down an interstate and block traffic that is illegal and will be dealt with accordingly. It does not matter if they aren't destroying anything. Notice how when people follow the law and put in a permit for a protest the response is not nearly as drastic? I know, following the law is a crazy concept these days. Everyone wants to talk about their rights but nobody actually takes the time to do research on what those rights are, they just know the numbers of a couple amendments to the Constitution (apparently that's all you need to know to be a legal expert in today's world).

​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.

​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.

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.
 
​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.

​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.

Time for me to pop in I guess, and give you two pennies.
 
So if I read the list of banned things correct, does that mean beanbag/CS/Stinger/Flash-grenade launchers are not legal for PD/SD/etc to own and use now?
That's sorta dense. If suspects have barricaded them in a building, does that mean they'll have to go up to the door, roof or whatever and try not to get shot while they're grenading the suspects with less than lethal? Wouldn't it be better to stand in cover and put 4 CS canisters and 2 flashbangs thru the wall with a GL? 
 
And with camouflage, what if there is the said situation needed close sniper support? Would it be better to have a guy in a light blue uniform to lay in grass, or a one in a ghillie suit? 
No matter what the situation is, some of the banned things should be unbanned.
 
 

Exactly, I see no issue with the way things are. Removing their equipment will only decrease their capabilities of being able to do what they do best. Keep the peace. 

​RDWAIFU is exactly right.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  The motto "to protect and serve" is not just a saying, it is police officer's way of life.

​I'm sorry, but are you really suggesting police must obey the every whim of the civilians? That police should knowingly change tactics, risking the death of police officers? Simply because civilians don't like their tactics? Forgive me, but I do not believe civilians are trained or have generally experienced tactical, split second decisions police officers must make to save the lives of themselves, fellow officers and civilians. The civilians are not law enforcement experts and can not be allowed tell police what tactics they can and cant use. Yes, the tactics should consider the safety of civilians, but they shouldn't disregard the safety of officers at the expense of how happy civilians are with their work. Yes, police officers signed up and know they take risks, but no matter what tactics they use they still risk everything. By allowing untrained, inexperienced and uneducated civilians in terms of tactics and law enforcement to decide what tactics the cops should use, you are effectively sending officers to their death, the officers who have to follow the tactics that the general civilian population HAPPY with, will end up dying, and very little civilians who made sure the tactics are changed will give a shit. You can't trust the running of law enforcement in the hands of untrained and uneducated civilians in terms of law enforcement. Police Officers are people. Why would you let people change their tactics just because they aren't happy with them, and knowingly send officers to their deaths. Mothers, Fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They are people and should not be treated with such disrespect that untrained and uneducated civilians decide what tactics to use. The police are the ones throwing themselves in the line of fire for the civilians. The civilians do not make the risky split-second decisions that cops made. I find it utterly disgraceful that people think a police officer should be subject to such ignorance and have their lives put in danger by the tactics civilians chose.