We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Guest • 8 years ago

My Grand Father and Great Grand Father (One a Chief of County Detectives and the other a highly decorated Police Captain who is legendary in the 3rd largest city in America starting service in 1918 and retiring in 1968) commented years ago that the whole concept of the Special Weapons and Tactics was wrong because they said they weren't Cops but Soldiers. They had no trouble with Police having Machine Guns or Citizens having Machine Guns for that matter but they viewed Police Officers as Keepers of the Peace and one didn't keep the peace with a sniper rifle and a squad of soldiers going to war with your fellow citizens.

kirthigdon • 8 years ago

I'd recommend reading Radley Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop" for a chilling history of the progressive militarization of police forces at all levels and their use as an occupying army against the population in general. What the US routinely inflicts on much of the rest of the world is more and more coming home to roost. Of course, there is occasional comic relief in the process - like the Texas sheriff's department which managed to crash their drone into their armored vehicle.
Kirt Higdon

Terenc Blakely • 8 years ago

"What the US routinely inflicts on much of the rest of the world"
You do realize that you have to be real obnoxious for an extended period of time to actually get on the receiving end of US aggression?

TheNuszAbides • 8 years ago

You do realize that your choices of phrase - "real obnoxious" and "US aggression" - are a whopper of false equivalence?

Dbom • 8 years ago

Instead of just "breathing" let's "think" for a moment....as Christians who believe in original sin.

What does one do with extraordinary power? Is it easy to abuse that power? Can it be hard not to chose to abuse that power especially when not being protected by God' Grace? Especially when living in a callous world like our own?

Hmmmm.

Last thing: He is a fool who says "It can't happen here".

A true fool!

meunke • 8 years ago

You're right. We should probably jump to conclusions right away. That's what rational people do.

Dbom • 8 years ago

Your right.

Nothing to see here.

Trust the .GOV.

I mean, Meunke said so, and well, when has the .GOV done anything against it's citizens?

Vigilance is futile. Got ya! The Founding Fathers would be proud of your lack of concern.

meunke • 8 years ago

The Founding Fathers would be men enough not to freak out like shrieking toddlers the moment a police department on a tight budget bought a re-purposed vehicle. There is enough to be genuinely concerned about without frantically losing your mind over every little you read on Infowars.

Shouldn't you be outside checking for Chemtrails?

Guest • 8 years ago

Really, I am always amused at the claims the "Founder's" would not have been concerned by the advent of some new oppression or taxation to fund the behemoth of government. The Founders went to war with the most powerful military in the 19th Century over a 1/2 pence tax on Tea and various tiny charges on Legal documents along with the compensated housing of British troops in private homes.

If they were alive today to examine the level of oppression Free American Citizens endure they would fill the trees with the corpses of our political class and burn it to the ground to efface its blight on this land.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

The founding fathers literally committed treason against their government, partly on the grounds of it using its military against them. However, they weren't so much "freak[ing] out like shrieking toddlers" as they were engaged in armed rebellion.

meunke • 8 years ago

Unless you are proposing armed rebellion is a sane response to the police buying a budget re-purposed vehicle, your comment adds nothing to the discussion.

Guest • 8 years ago

One small item of oppression is but a sign of the general tyranny.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

You're the one who brought the founding fathers into it.

meunke • 8 years ago

Uhm, no, I wasn't. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Just don't work on it on infowars. You're paranoid enough at this point.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

Sorry. You're correct. Dbom did.

You did say that they wouldn't freak out in response to our increasingly militarized police force. They would. They did. They didn't even think we should have a standing army.

meunke • 8 years ago

*facepalm* Please go here.

No. What I said was "The Founding Fathers would be men enough not to freak out like shrieking
toddlers the moment a police department on a tight budget bought a
re-purposed vehicle." That is NOT saying that they wouldn't be very concerned about the militarization of the government overall.

Somehow I don't see Thomas Jefferson or George Washington losing his mind in a shriek fest in a public square because a British ship purchased an extra 4 pounder off of a decommissioned frigate, adding darkly that they were all probably a bunch of rapists too.

Speaking as someone who has read them, they had a bit more perspective than that.

Guest • 8 years ago

You need to read the papers of the time. They did freak out over far less than this in a time when even considering rebellion was a capital offense.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

You're right. I cede defeat. The founding fathers would be perfectly cool with the British using cannon for civilian law enforcement.

Dbom • 8 years ago

Yes I should be!!

And it bothers me that I can't because I'm fighting with you on the internets.

My life stinks!

PeonyMoss • 8 years ago

Florida? They better hope that thing doesn't make its own sinkhole.

meunke • 8 years ago

Please take a breath, everyone.

Do I approve of the purchase of military hardware like this? No.

However, I very much doubt that the Miami PD all sit around after hours plotting how they can better prepare to stamp on the faces of civilians. This has the exact same smell and feel as the highway department when it tears up perfectly good roads: if that budget isn't spent, they lose it.

The military contracts are practically tapped out. Where else are they going to sell their toys? I'm betting under the table subsidies were involved too.

To be honest, local police departments having a mine-proof vehicle doesn't worry (it angers me as a waste of tax funds, but that's a different matter). Local police are not going to be the Orwelian storm trooper armies some people seem to think. Those same people, I've noticed, usually don't know any local cops. Feds may be a different matter, and your mileage may vary there.

But hey, Patrick Henry was also a big supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the very reason...

Dbom • 8 years ago

"Local police are not going to be the Orwelian storm trooper armies some people seem to think. "

Read Gulag Archipelago and tell me about the Blue Hats and who wore them.

Hint: it wasn't some dude from out of state.

Wake up!

guest • 8 years ago

My community has something similar - it's a heavy armored vehicle and it's used to provide a police presence in areas where a lot of gang gunfights occur. In these situations the people who live in the neighborhood are pretty much under siege. They are afraid to leave their homes to go to work, to let their kids go to school or play outside, for fear of getting caught in the crossfire, which can erupt without warning. Stray bullets enter houses and people have been shot and one child killed while in their home. The police use the armored vehicle to enter these areas and maintain the peace.

meunke • 8 years ago

How many cops do you know? It's obvious: zero.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

If you give a bunch of wannabe soldiers who couldn't meet the pt standards a tank or other military vehicle, they're going to use it.

See, e.g., http://gawker.com/5836445/s...

People who think local cops aren't Orwellian storm troopers aren't paying attention.

Dave G. • 8 years ago

So I take it you learned everything there is to know about the police by watching Burt Reynolds movies?

meunke • 8 years ago

Your link is facepalm worthy and not in any way the standard for local police. I can't view the link as I'm at work and gawker is blocked. But from the link title... Seagal is a media wh0re trying to regain his popularity. That something like this happened due to that doesn't surprise me. BTW 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' is not a reflection of real private investigation either.

You also may not know this, but quite a few police are ex military.

You should try to get to know some police. Your comments make me think you know none.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

Seagal conducted the raid under the supervision if Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He conducted the raid as an actual deputy of an actual sheriff. He drove a tank into a house on the suspicion that the house was linked to cockfighting.

Also, if you can't view the link, how do you know it's face palm worthy?

meunke • 8 years ago

You're not helping your argument.

"Seagal conducted the raid under the supervision if Sheriff Joe Arpaio."
- Ah yes, two media wh0res. I fail to see how this means such behavior is standard for local law enforcement.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

Is Arpaio not local law enforcement? Do you only count true Scottish cops?

meunke • 8 years ago

No, I just don't count media wh0res. Kind of like I don't consider Paris Hilton to be an 'average local girl'.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

I just went to the first story involving cops misusing a military vehicle just because they can. That is not the only story of police misbehavior, or of cops needlessly and abusively using SWAT teams and military equipment.

See, for instance, this Texas SWAT raid of a farm: http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

Or when a SWAT team shoots a marine for no reason: http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

Or when cops literally rape someone for 12 hours and then bill their rape victim: http://blog.simplejustice.u...

Or when cops rape someone else: http://blog.simplejustice.u...

Or when cops straight up murder an unarmed, handcuffed teenage in the back of their cop car: http://www.newsobserver.com...

If cops can't manage not to murder or rape people in their custody, then they shouldn't be trusted with military vehicles.

guest • 8 years ago

Can you please cite to some factual sources that actually support your generalization that "police murder or rape people in their custody"? The simple justice link you provided is so overtly biased, inflammatory and hysterical that it's nothing more than a rant and doesn't merit serious consideration. Tons of opinion, very few facts. The fact that you're calling an anal cavity search RAPE doesn't lend you credibility, either.

The case involving the handcuffed teenager is certainly concerning, but to conclude that the cop murdered him is out there. The autopsy revealed he died of what could have been a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head, firearm identification concluded the shot was not fired from a police issued weapon, and there was no evidence (presumably GSR) that the officer had shot a weapon that night, so what exactly is the evidence of murder?

Police are not perfect. Some are exemplary examples of courage and integrity, some are just on the other side of the line of the criminals, and most are just decent people trying to do a tough job. Hysterical, inflammatory and frankly ignorant allegations are easy to ignore and, like the boy who cried wolf, can diminish actual allegations of misconduct, fraud and abuse.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

The cops in New Mexico sodomized a man repeatedly, for hours, with no probable cause. Did he consent? Did they insert something in his anus? That's a rape. That's the legal definition of rape in New Mexico. If I abducted someone on the side of the road in New Mexico, and forcibly and without his consent spent the next twelve hours sticking things in his anus, I would, rightly, go to prison.

Likewise, if I handcuffed an unarmed teenager, put him in the back of my car, and then he somehow ended up getting shot, the response wouldn't be a paid vacation.

And if you don't like the blog linked to, click through to the normal news source.

guest • 8 years ago

I'm sure you are fully aware that when you use terms like rape and sodomy most people, who won't actually go read your links, assume that the police, using their genitals, sexually assaulted someone. Rape and forcible sodomy are horrendous, disgusting crimes and I'm sure it serves your purpose to identify them with police. It's intellectually dishonest to be so misleading in an argument and it makes you look like a police hating fanatic.

Yes, the New Mexico case is bizarre and awful. But you leave out pertinent facts -- that this was all done with the permission of a search warrant, by physicians, in a hospital. That is not the police raping and sodomizing someone. I tried to find an actual copy of the search warrant complaint to see the grounds on which this was allowed, but couldn't after a few minutes and went back to my life.

And as someone who is actually involved in charging and prosecuting murder cases on a regular basis, I can tell you with absolute certainty that no one - police or drug dealer - could legitimately be charged with murder based on the facts available in the handcuffed teenager case.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

In New Mexico, sodomizing someone with an object is rape.

If you're actually involved in prosecuting cases, then you know that in many jurisdictions rape with an object is rape. If you don't know that, you're lying and you have not prosecuted anything. Or you're some sort of ghost who was a lawyer before many jurisdictions expanded the definition of rape.

guest • 8 years ago

You insist on missing the point. Yes, the definition of sexual penetration includes inserting an object into the anus or vagina. However, most state statutes specifically exclude medical acts from this definition - otherwise, every yearly pap exam or prostate exam would be a sexual assault.

The point is the police did not insert their fingers or anything into this guy's anus. It was done by physicians, at a hospital, with a judge's permission via search warrant. There's a lot to question here, but insisting on saying the police raped and sodomized this man is ridiculous.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

Were they looking for polyps? Do doctors get to probe you without your consent? It wasn't a medical procedure.

Even giving the cops every benefit of the doubt (more than they ave their victim), how many times do they need to penetrate their victim to determine that there weren't any drugs?

guest • 8 years ago

I'll give this one last try. The police didn't penetrate him. Doctors did.

As I said, there's a lot to question here. I would start with the search warrant complaint and look at the grounds, which essentially is looking at the police's conduct. Then I'd go on to the judge and his/her review of the grounds and his/her actual search warrant and see what precisely was authorized. Then I'd go on to the physicians and look at why they went to the extremes they did. There were allegations this guy was known to traffic in drugs and had previously hidden drugs in his anus. There are cases where people have had bags of drugs explode/dissolve in their GI tract and they died as a result. Our jail was sued for not thoroughly checking an inmate and he swallowed his baggie of cocaine and it dissolved in his stomach and he died in jail and his family sued the county. The case was dismissed, but agencies overreact to stuff like that.

I'm am not saying this was ok or justified by any means - I am saying that it looks like there were a lot of process problems and judgment errors down the line and those of you who insist on screaming "the police raped this guy for 12 hours!!!!!" are missing an opportunity to maybe correct an actual problem.

meunke • 8 years ago

I think you misunderstand me. I am not defending misdeeds. Even with the links you posted, these are not the rule for all police any more than it is valid to say that ' All priests are pedophiles.' If I were saying that these things NEVER happen, you might have a point. As it is, you are thrashing a strawman.

Those who violate the authority and trust they have been given should be punished for it. But posting the misdeeds of a few as an attempt to slander the majority of an entire profession doesn't strike me as logical, which is exactly what you're doing.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

I'm not saying all cops are bad. I'm sure many cops are good, honest people. I'm a white guy from South Carolina. I'm sure my ancestors, some of whom lived long enough to meet me, were good people even while tolerating (or, further back, practicing) various forms of institutionalized racism.

The problem, however, is that cops are far too tolerant of misdeeds by other cops, and, as a result, cops can literally rape and murder people with impunity. Until cops stop standing up for their rapist, murdering colleagues, they shouldn't be trusted with badges or guns, let alone with military vehicles.

ETA: Likewise, if priests stood up for other priests who raped children, then they too would deserve contempt. Many of the Bishops from the 70s and 80s deserve contempt. If the Church hadn't put in better procedures, it would still be wrong to assume all priests are child-rapists, but it would be insane to trust one with your child.

meunke • 8 years ago

Hmmm, I think you need to actually get to know some police. The only ones it appears by your rants you know are high profile abusers and the ones in your head.

And no, read your comments above. You DID slander the entire profession. Get some perspective, sir.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

Most individual cops are good people. Most cops at the level of police departments and police unions are perfectly willing to conduct SWAT raids for no discernible reason, putting themselves and the public at risk, and are willing to protect their brothers who literally murder and rape people.

meunke • 8 years ago

"Most cops" - Really? Got proof of that? No, no you don't.

Like I said, get some perspective, sir. You are SORELY lacking.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

Do you have proof that any cops don't tolerate working alongside murderers and rapists?

guest • 8 years ago

I'm sure you realize it's impossible to prove a negative, so I assume that's a rhetorical question.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

If there was a cop who didn't tolerate cops murdering and raping with impunity, that would manifest as a positive - e.g., speaking out, resigning, etc.

meunke • 8 years ago

So, dodging the question, eh? I'm not the one slandering an entire profession. Get a grip on yourself. Now you're starting to sound more and more like someone who just got issued a traffic ticket.

There's no talking to you. You've cemented your irrationality. Carry on, I guess.

Jroberts548 • 8 years ago

How many cops have quit the Durham police department because of Jesus Huerta? Have any cops?

Have any cops or their unions come out and said they need to crackdown on police abuse? That they should stop shooting dogs needlessly, or stop using SWAT teams needlessly?

How many cops have resigned rather than work for the same department that raped David Eckert for 12 hours? Have any?

Cops aren't there to protect us. They're there to protect cops.

meunke • 8 years ago

Wll you pledge to immediately quit your job if anyone in your company commits an evil act?

But please, if you wake up in the middle of the night thinking someone may be trying to break into your house, do not call 911. They'll just send one of those murdering/raping cops. And you don't want them showing up... Grow up, man. I'm not talking to you anymore.