Blue Crab
benthivore
Marty, you're still JUST a mid-RAGE anarchist working against a clever and seasoned professional. All your fotos of dead people are just grossing the nice folks out.
Police Militarization in the US
- Thread starter Pertinacious Tom
- Start date
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
It might discourage "the nice people" from visiting these Tomthreadz
Marty Gingras
Mid-range Anarchist
I hear ya. It's another real cost of the 2nd Amendment.
Blue Crab
benthivore
Maybe but here's the hard part. In a very annoying way, Tedious Tom is the ACLU of SA and likely other forum sites. I support those wimps and commies at ACLU because they keep us honest but I don't agree personally with many decisions. Howsomever, it ain't about me, it's us.
Marty's pics are everyday scenes familiar to first responders/hospital ERs of every ilk every fucking day of the year in accidents that have nothing to do with guns.
Marty Gingras
Mid-range Anarchist
Agreed Tom does some quite good ACLU-type stuff here, but not about the 2nd Amendment. He's trolling about the 2nd Amendment with an unethical and ineffective shtick. It's unethical because it trivializes the matter at hand. Responding with relevant gore is effective feedback. He quits that and I quit with the gore.
I truly regret that the feedback I'm giving Tom looks like stuff you are familiar with. BM and his elk are probably not so familiar, so hopefully there is some benefit there.
Last edited:
Steam Flyer
Sophisticated Yet Humble
Tom is a highly partisan and highly dishonest shill. He grants himself the benefit of ALWAYS being right, which is not something the ACLU claims for itself AFAIK.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
- Thread starter
- #447
I thought that was the subject of this thread. Well, that and how I'm the worst person ever, of course.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
- Thread starter
- #448
Weird that I've never seen a reply from you to any post that could be characterized that way. It's almost as if only one issue is important to you. Well, no, not almost.
Marty Gingras
Mid-range Anarchist
I've upvoted a number of your ethical and effective ACLU-type posts. I've read lots of stuff via your relevant links. Like I said, you do some quite good work. You also troll with an unethical and ineffective shtick.
Just to show another side to police violence. Idiot exercised his 2nd amendment rights by performing an improvised weapons drill in the direction of a McDonalds employee who didn't complete an order to his satisfaction. The Police decided it was too much constitutional freedom and attempted to arrest him for brandishing. His improperly secured firearm was seized by his four year old child, who wanted Daddy to be free and attempted to shoot the cops. 2A dude only got 120 days, since no cops were killed. Since the kids were white, they didn't get shot either. Of course in Salt Lake City everybody seems to be a pasty shade of white. When four year olds are demonstrating family values by attempting to kill cops, a certain amount of paranoia does seem justified.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
- Thread starter
- #451
Four Cops Implicated in Breonna Taylor's Death Now Face Federal Charges
Because that's how important the stupid drug war is to drug warriors. A good reason to quit electing them in my (very small minority) view.
The warrant admits what I've been saying forever: no-knock raids value evidence over lives.
Because that's how important the stupid drug war is to drug warriors. A good reason to quit electing them in my (very small minority) view.
Vgree
Super Anarchist
The warrant at Taylor's residence wasn't served as a no-knock warrant, the subject who shot at the police admitted they knocked for almost forty five seconds. No-Knock was authorized but the officers at the scene did not perform the warrant in that manner.
Now I do not think it should have been served as a no knock warrant and honestly don't think there are many uses for a No-Knock warrant and preservation of evidence should never be one of them.
The National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA) who make recomendations for tactical units or SWAT teams have begun to recommend that No-Knocks only be used in situations where there are lives in danger. Any team still doing them for preservation of evidence is going to start getting themselves in some very serious legal trouble.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
- Thread starter
- #453
Long overdue but glad to hear it.
Vgree
Super Anarchist
As for other types of militarization such as armored vehicles, I believe any criticism of their use is misplaced. In seven years on the local multi-juridictional tactical unit I would have had to shoot several people if we didn't have a big armored vehicle. Instead we have let several people shoot at us while we sat inside safe until we were able to talk them down and come to a peaceful resolution.
Vgree
Super Anarchist
I agree, I have only ever participated in one No-Knock warrant and it was well justified to get some kids and their mother out of a very dangerous situation before the drunk asshole they called a father had a chance to realize the cops were in his house and shoot the kids. It was planned with the mother and he is in prison now for a long time.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
- Thread starter
- #456
My usual arguments are:
1. You don't really need them.
2. They cost too much.
3. This is a flavor of military pork.
I suspect you'd reject the first two based on your post and I can see why. Thanks for a different perspective.
badlatitude
Super Anarchist
- 32,506
- 6,635
Vgree
Super Anarchist
1. I do disagree with officers not needing them, we use ours a lot to approach structures to serve warrants. Our standard warrant service is we pull up, surround the house and will spend time calling out the subjects over a loud speaker, from there we step up to minor gas platforms that are all deployed from within the safety of the vehicle. The vast majority of our warrants are for violent felons, occasionally we get involved in something drug related but when we do it's generally tied into cartel stuff and we are assisting Customs and Border Patrol.
We also use it to evacuate other people from dangerous areas. On a recent stand off with a bank robber we used it to go to all the trailer houses nearby and get kids and people out while the criminal watched from windows. He could have chosen to harm those people at any time and having that vehicle took that options from him.
2.I don't believe every small town should have one because they are expensive, the way our team is set up is the county provides the vehicle and each city that participates in the tactical unit provides the man power and a defined set of gear for each person they send. The county also supplies some people to the team but the cost is then spread between 6 cities and the county. This lets smaller agencies like mine have access to the armored vehicle.
3. I disagree with using the old military MRAP's, they are not made for our purpose. They were meant to transport soldiers through areas where the could face explosive threats. The engine, radiator, and other components are not hardened and can easily be shot. Sure the area where the people are is protected but it sits too high off the ground, they take special training to drive, they have limited space inside due to the V shaped hull they have to deflect explosions. They also are hard to work on and require special tools and training which many cities do not have access to.
We use a "Bearcat" it is a custom built vehicle that is made for tactical units. It's basically a Ford F350 with a big metal box on it. It is also hardened in areas such as the motor and radiator so that a single round doesn't take you out of service. Since it is basically just a van that is bullet proof it sits lower to the ground and is much easier to get in and out of. Also since it is a Ford most cities have someone who is qualified to work on it and it drives like a big truck.
Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
- Thread starter
- #459
San Francisco Votes To Allow Killer Robots
I'm usually among the civil liberties protesters but I also think cops should be effective and, to the extent possible, safe.
I think in the not too distant future, every cop car will have a drone and a stair-climbing robot and it might have a smoke bomb or percussion grenade and that's all OK with me.
If there's a violent, armed, or dangerous suspect and you can send a robot or @Vgree to contact and incapacitate him, which way do you want to go? I want to send the robot.
I'm usually among the civil liberties protesters but I also think cops should be effective and, to the extent possible, safe.
I think in the not too distant future, every cop car will have a drone and a stair-climbing robot and it might have a smoke bomb or percussion grenade and that's all OK with me.
If there's a violent, armed, or dangerous suspect and you can send a robot or @Vgree to contact and incapacitate him, which way do you want to go? I want to send the robot.
P_Wop
Super Anarchist
So you're happy start this progression?
