Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police

[tangent4ronpaul]

AWESOME!

but I want to call him out on something...

It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

So is Rand pro-fusion center / local spying y the cops...

those places are worthless!

worse, local and federal databases have merged. This is a real problem.

-t

 

[Anti Federalist]

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Too late...

That said, well done Rand.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You can define troll or shill however you want. The majority of people who live in America feel that way, and they voice their opinion on social media.

This.

Boobus wants a police state, that much is overwhelmingly clear.

 

[devil21]

This.

Boobus wants a police state, that much is overwhelmingly clear.

I'd counter that Boobus likes the idea of security and safety. That means a police state but not a desire for a police state. Ask anyone if they want a police state. No one will say yes. The notion of safety was all good until the realities of what that entailed started to become reality. I understand that we're arguing semantics here but semantics was how it was sold and will also be (at least part of) how it is unsold.

It's the Frank Luntz school of swaying opinion.

 

[anaconda]

My god, he nailed it.

I didn't want him to weigh in here, but I can't imagine a more perfect response.

Nailed it indeed. Best op ed yet. I thought Rand would sit this one out. So I'm really pleased that he jumped into the fray.

 

[PaleoPaul]

What Rand's proposing is pretty modest in comparison to other jurisdictions. Hell, in the UK, for example, the cops don't even HAVE guns on them! Not even a one-shot pea shooter, let alone military grade equipment!

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'd counter that Boobus likes the idea of security and safety. That means a police state but not a desire for a police state. Ask anyone if they want a police state. No one will say yes. The notion of safety was all good until the realities of what that entailed started to become reality. I understand that we're arguing semantics here but semantics was how it was sold and will also be (at least part of) how it is unsold.

It's the Frank Luntz school of swaying opinion.

Look at the reaction in Boston last year when the SWAT team/FBI "caught" the bomber. The public basically threw a parade for the police. They may not like the term "police state" but the American public (outside of the inner cities) loves the false sense of security the police provide, even if it comes at a cost to their civil liberties.

 

[malkusm]

I guess I agree with Rand here? He is not very clear what he actually supports or doesn't support. Where do you draw the line between the gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control, vs. "military" gear which is supposedly inappropriate?

What?

In what world do local police units need "gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control"?

 

[Crashland]

What?

In what world do local police units need "gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control"?

You would when the mob is breaking the law.

 

[Vanguard101]

If I call correctly, we didn't even want police. How is the idea stolen?

 

[Crashland]

All of us agree that the police should not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights, and should not interfere in any way with protesters who are not breaking the law. But what do you all suggest that the police do when you have a situation where you have riots where people are breaking the law, as in throwing rocks at people, vandalizing things, breaking windows and looting stores? Who should deal with that situation if not the police? Do you expect them to handle that with the same equipment they would normally use for handling individual lawbreakers?

 

[PaleoPaul]

All of us agree that the police should not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights, and should not interfere in any way with protesters who are not breaking the law. But what do you all suggest that the police do when you have a situation where you have riots where people are breaking the law, as in throwing rocks at people, vandalizing things, breaking windows and looting stores? Who should deal with that situation if not the police? Do you expect them to handle that with the same equipment they would normally use for handling individual lawbreakers?

I don't think Rand is proposing that we become like the UK where the cops don't even have guns on them.

 

[Crashland]

I don't think Rand is proposing that we become like the UK where the cops don't even have guns on them.

I don't think so either but that is the vibe I am getting here from others on the forum. I am trying to pin down where people draw the line between equipment that is appropriate vs. inappropriate.

 

[Smitty]

I suppose I'll be the odd man out here, but it doesn't seem like day 3 of rioting and looting is the most opportune time to be calling attention to, and finding fault with the excessive strength of the responding police.

 

[Brett85]

I suppose I'll be the odd man out here, but it doesn't seem like day 3 of rioting and looting is the most opportune time to be calling attention to, and finding fault with the excessive strength of the responding police.

But there have also been reports of the police using force against peaceful protesters, right?

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

All of us agree that the police should not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights, and should not interfere in any way with protesters who are not breaking the law. But what do you all suggest that the police do when you have a situation where you have riots where people are breaking the law, as in throwing rocks at people, vandalizing things, breaking windows and looting stores? Who should deal with that situation if not the police? Do you expect them to handle that with the same equipment they would normally use for handling individual lawbreakers?

How many stores did the cops prevent from getting looted. NONE!! That's right NONE!

How many stores didn't get looted because the owners and employees were standing in front of them with AR's and shotguns. LOTS!

I'm all for completely disarming the cops. Give um a taser and a rubber billy club like the UK. THe number of people and pets murdered by cops would drop to zero overnight. If you really need more there is this thing called the national guard....

-t

 

[Smitty]

I've heard that also. But the dominant story is looting and rioting.

I'm all for demilitarizing the police. But calling for it during looting and rioting is abysmally bad timing.

 

[Brett85]

I've heard that also. But the dominant story is looting and rioting.

I'm all for demilitarizing the police. But calling for it during looting and rioting is abysmally bad timing.

He was getting criticized by liberal websites for not speaking out on the subject, which I imagine is why he decided to write this editorial in Time magazine.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I suppose I'll be the odd man out here, but it doesn't seem like day 3 of rioting and looting is the most opportune time to be calling attention to, and finding fault with the excessive strength of the responding police.

OK, day 3... and the cops have now shot 2 people. The people are now throwing rocks and firebombs at the cops. Now who is driving this response. It's like the WoT - for every civilian you kill, you create 10 new terrorists. Perfect job security FTW! /sarc

-t

 

[Smitty]

It's never a good idea to allow the liberal media to shape the discussion.