l3ubba

I don't think anyone is trying to make a generalization of a community based on this event. People are just saying it is sad that there are still people out there that believe in white supremacy and that racism is not dead. I have not heard anyone come out and say that all white people support what this guy did or that we aren't doing enough to prevent these kinds of attacks.

Anybody who thinks border patrol checkpoints are unconstitutional and illegal please do some research on the topic first. Took me five seconds and I found the case law where the Supreme Court ruled they are legal. Check United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. Also they do have these kinds of checkpoints on the northern border. Probably not as many but why would you spend money and resources on a border that isn't as big of a problem? We don't have shit tons of Canadians trying to illegally cross into the US and the drug and weapon smuggling on the Canadian border isn't nearly as bad as the smuggling coming from the south.

​Good luck. If the MOS you want isn't available don't settle for something that you don't really like. There isn't any rush to pick an MOS. MOS' open and close all the time, so if there is something you really want just tell your recruiter to let you know when an opening becomes available. And depending on the MOS you want you might be able to negotiate a school into your contract (I got airborne school in my contract). Let me know if you have any questions about MOS', contracts, or anything in general.

​Actually the Army recruitment site is goarmy.com if I remember correctly. The army.mil website is just the standard Army home page and has some information and resources for service members. This is the first I'm hearing of this and I'm in the Army so that just goes to show how much it affected our jobs, lol. And you are correct, there wouldn't be any classified information on a "green side" network. There are various networks for each level of classification. NIPR (aka green side) for Unclassified (basically it is just the regular internet), SIPR (aka red side) for everything up to Secret, and there are various networks for Top Secret depending on who you work for and what information you are trying to find. Each network is completely separate and they don't cross with each other.

​Not necessarily. The guy might try to take as many people with him as possible and if a police officer is able to have equipment that offers more protection and allows him to neutralize the threat from a greater distance then he should have that. If there is a guy shooting everyone in sight I would rather be able to take him down from 100 meters away rather than 3 meters away.

​That is just one example of people twisting words to fit their agenda. The U.S. did not create al-Qaeda or ISIS. We funded the Mujahideen in the 80s when they were fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. There are lots of people (Osama Bin Laden included) who were part of the Mjuahideen in the 80s and received help from us. This isn't a secret and it isn't the first time we have done something like that. Just because we were "allies" with someone 30-40 years ago doesn't mean they will be our allies forever. We fought against the British from the 1770s-1800s does that mean that we have to be enemies with the British for the rest of our lives?

​What happens when the bad guys have military grade equipment as well? After a crazy dude goes on a killing spree and shoots up a movie theater or school people are quick to criticize the police response and what should have been done to prevent it but now they want to take away the very equipment used to help stop that violence?

​Everyone has some kind of bias it just depends on how much they let the bias affect their opinion. However, this thread is rapidly getting off topic.

While a couple of the countries he listed I could see falling in the next 20 years I find that most of this list is bullshit. One of those countries isn't even a recognized country. The Islamic State is a insurgency not a country. Spain, Belgium, China, the UK, and the US are in no danger of collapsing in the next 20 years unless something really radical happens. Actually the only country I could really see collapsing in the next 20 years is North Korea. I think North Korea is on borrowed time, there is no way they can last much longer (although they have made it more than 50 years so who knows). Also, look at his sources in the description of the video. He is basically talking out of his ass.

​Just a suggestion, if you want people to take your argument seriously don't use sources that are so clearly biased. Some of the things that guy said are flat out lies or facts that have been taken out of context.

​Lol, there were too many good clips to choose from but I think I'll pick this one today.

​ ​Please tell me these comments were sarcastic. Fox is a horrible news network, I have never seen so much bullshit and hypocrisy come out of one news network. I strongly dislike CNN and MSNBC as well but at least they don't contradict themselves on a regular basis. I rarely go to any of those news networks for my news, I go to BBC to get an outside perspective on the situation. However this is a conversation for a different topic.

​LOL did you just use the word liberal and Fox News in the same sentence? Those two words don't even belong in the same paragraph. I wouldn't blame one side of the media for all the exaggerations and hyping the story up, they are all guilty of it whether they are a liberal news agency or a conservative one. They all are the scum of the earth who race bait and report everything as fact without any research.

These people are standing on a sidewalk calmly, not running through the streets. And as someone pointed out before, these types of "protests" never resulted in damage to public or private property and didn't result in injuries. ​Just like I said in one of my previous posts, you are just spouting out amendments to The Constitution but don't actually know what you are talking about. I suppose using your logic I could say that since we have the 2nd Amendment I have the right to go purchase any weapon I want. I can go out and buy anti-aircraft missiles and if anybody tries to stop me I will say they are trampling on my 2nd Amendment rights. Yes, we have amendments that give us certain rights but there are still laws you have to follow. It isn't fair to ask people to be logical? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard today. So anytime you are upset it gives you the right to do whatever you want and not worry about consequences? I have to try that sometime. Sorry officer I was upset when I robbed that store, it isn't fair to ask me to use logic.​ I wonder how well that will work for me in court. Because police officers are sworn members who have been entrusted with that kind of authority; people seem to forget that these days. Every police shooting is investigated and if there is sufficient evidence to charge the officer they are charged just like anyone else. 99.9% of people who kill cops are no where near justified in what they did.​ Just like c13 said, anyone can go and selectively pick out pictures that support their side of the argument. Something you'll notice in those pictures however is that there isn't a single armored vehicle in sight so I am not exactly how those pictures help your cause.​ ​You can look at what I said to Riley in reference to that comment. When police commit a crime they are held to the same standard as everyone else. The issue isn't that police are getting away with things, the issue is that people don't know jack shit when they are talking about the law. Ferguson is the perfect example.

​As I said in my post above, the biggest reason for camo is because it is the cheapest and easiest thing for departments to get their hands on. If you are a police chief or sheriff and you had the option of using money from your budget to buy black or blue tactical uniforms or you can get the exact same uniforms (only difference being they are camo) from the military for free what would you choose? As for the reason they respond to protests the way they did was because of the way they turn out. Have you seen a legitimate peaceful protest where the police brought out armored vehicles? I haven't. Ferguson, Baltimore, and all of the other protests across the US where armored vehicles were used was because there were people destroying property and attacking people.

​The reason the officers you have shown pictures of are wearing ACU pattern uniforms is probably because that is what they could get for free from the military. It doesn't have anything with them trying to look like the Army. If the military gave them free BDUs they would probably wear that. Regardless, police do not wear camo on a regular basis. If you see police walking around in big plate carrier vests and camo the last thing you should be worried about is what they are wearing. Your average police officer that most citizens come in contact with wear regular police uniforms and look like regular police officers. If a situation comes up in my neighborhood where a SWAT team is needed, the last thing I will care about is what pattern is printed on their uniforms.

​It is a cultural thing. Look at the statistics of shootings and other violent crimes in the U.S. compared to other 1st world countries, huge difference.

​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.

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.

​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.

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'm just going to leave this right here. http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2015/5/18/marion_county_threat.html