Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police

[Crashland]

One thing I haven't been hearing much about is why the police vehicle had no dash cam. The police department has enough money for military grade armored vehicles and riot gear, but they don't have enough money to equip dashcams or body cams? Ridiculous. Dash cams and body cams are common sense. Helps keep police accountable to the people AND helps the police when there are bogus claims.

 

[thoughtomator]

One thing I haven't been hearing much about is why the police vehicle had no dash cam. The police department has enough money for military grade armored vehicles and riot gear, but they don't have enough money to equip dashcams or body cams? Ridiculous. Dash cams and body cams are common sense. Helps keep police accountable to the people AND helps the police when there are bogus claims.

No cameras means no witnesses to contradict the cops when they yell "Stop resisting!" while they're beating the shit out of someone - a tactic we have very strong proof that this particular PD uses (they did it to a WaPo reporter!)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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.

I don't really disagree with you, but I do perceive a serious problem. Who is to say what the difference is between a riot and, say, the Whiskey Rebellion? Further, once a force is equipped to stop rioting or rebelling mobs, will they not seek out justifications to use that equipment, thus expanding and encroaching power in the exact way we all (supposedly) hate?

Finally, I would add that in the original Framer's model the quelling of such mega-riots would have been handled by the local citizens on the ground in their capacity as militia, and then the riots would not be quelled so much as property being protected from damage or looting, and let the riot run it's course.

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.

If every able-bodied soul were armed and had some experience at the militia, then the Mayor could have said, "A destructive riot is now in progress. All measures are authorized to the unorganized militia to defend against theft and looting. Unauthorized trespass will be considered intent to loot." you could lay in a covered defense behind storefronts and just drop anybody that breaks in. pretty soon everyone else will get the message: riot all you want but break into property and you die. It won't be long if that becomes the common practice, where people riot all the time with almost no real property damage. Which frankly would be fine by me. Let people outrage. It is their right as Americans. Don't let them destroy people's property when they do.

IF we had a proper unorganized militia, then the actual police would only ever need to get barely over Andy Griffith. For anything really big just co-op with the local militia which would do the double-duty of ensuring that said action(s) had the real sanction of the public.

We of course do not have such a thing today, and in this age the question of what to do in an actual destructive riot is a lot more perplexing. Asking to police to quell riots (put down insurrections) is pretty much equivalent to asking for encroaching abuse and eventual tyranny. Until we can fix the underlying problems in the balance of power, perhaps a bridge over the gap would be deploying the National Guard in a "defense of property only" role with a similar ROE to the militia I described above.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.

I disagree.

I saw with my own eyes, a whole city turn out and applaud being locked down and frog marched at gun point out of their homes, for what amounted to, in the end, nothing.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Chucky "FlashBang" Schumer.

http://flashbangschumer.com/

At the (Waco) hearing Schumer asked Dick DeGuerin, one of Koresh's lawyers, if it was true that the Davidians were stockpiling grenades. DeGuerin said the only grenades he had seen at Mount Carmel were the ones BATF agents tossed in during their raid.

A startled Schumer insisted that the "flashbang" grenades used by the BATF-- which create a bright flash and a loud noise to distract and disorient the enemy--are not really grenades.

Later he contemptuously dismissed DeGuerin's testimony: "Mr. DeGuerin said flashbangers can kill, injure, maim. Anyone who knows anything about these things knows they can't."

 

[Occam's Banana]

You have to admit, it's entertaining to watch their reactions. Talk about cognitive dissonance! Bring popcorn.

Also: The individual reactions of those both on the left, and those on the "mainstream" right, are showing in sharp relief: who is willing to think independently and objectively, and who is just a sameoldsameold partisan hack on either side.

Once again, Rand is demonstrating, in a very concrete way, the noble thought that our member Deborah K put forth in her signature line: "Diversity finds Unity in the Message of Freedom"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...litics-right-now-to-break-left-right-paradigm

Steele: Rand Paul is most dangerous man in politics right now to break left-right paradigm

Michael Steele and Peter Suderman on Up with Steve Kornacki - MSNBC 8/17/14


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ix1EKybQI

 

[Occam's Banana]

Okay, people! This post deserves a lot more rep than any one of us can give it - so pony up, everybody ...

I don't really disagree with you, but I do perceive a serious problem. Who is to say what the difference is between a riot and, say, the Whiskey Rebellion? Further, once a force is equipped to stop rioting or rebelling mobs, will they not seek out justifications to use that equipment, thus expanding and encroaching power in the exact way we all (supposedly) hate?

Finally, I would add that in the original Framer's model the quelling of such mega-riots would have been handled by the local citizens on the ground in their capacity as militia, and then the riots would not be quelled so much as property being protected from damage or looting, and let the riot run it's course.

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.

If every able-bodied soul were armed and had some experience at the militia, then the Mayor could have said, "A destructive riot is now in progress. All measures are authorized to the unorganized militia to defend against theft and looting. Unauthorized trespass will be considered intent to loot." you could lay in a covered defense behind storefronts and just drop anybody that breaks in. pretty soon everyone else will get the message: riot all you want but break into property and you die. It won't be long if that becomes the common practice, where people riot all the time with almost no real property damage. Which frankly would be fine by me. Let people outrage. It is their right as Americans. Don't let them destroy people's property when they do.

IF we had a proper unorganized militia, then the actual police would only ever need to get barely over Andy Griffith. For anything really big just co-op with the local militia which would do the double-duty of ensuring that said action(s) had the real sanction of the public.

We of course do not have such a thing today, and in this age the question of what to do in an actual destructive riot is a lot more perplexing. Asking to police to quell riots (put down insurrections) is pretty much equivalent to asking for encroaching abuse and eventual tyranny. Until we can fix the underlying problems in the balance of power, perhaps a bridge over the gap would be deploying the National Guard in a "defense of property only" role with a similar ROE to the militia I described above.

 

[XNavyNuke]

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.

Lots of rioting and looting in our history, even before the revolution. Sometimes it is the only way to highlight the injustices handed down by perfumed princes. A good pre-revolution example would be the North Carolina Regulator Movement.

XNN

 

[devil21]

I disagree.

I saw with my own eyes, a whole city turn out and applaud being locked down and frog marched at gun point out of their homes, for what amounted to, in the end, nothing.

I meant literally go ask someone if he/she wants to live in a police state. No one will say yes.

Don't mistake a party for a demonstration. People run outside when their NFL team wins the Super Bowl and do the same thing. That same paper said THANK YOU SEAHAWKS in January. Both groups experienced the same amount of impact in their daily lives. None, at that moment other than a quick buzz. Just supporting the winning team at that moment. That's the reality of it.

 

[extortion17]

"Rand Paul" and "We Must Demilitarize the Police" are both trending on twitter right now.

 

[Todd]

I disagree.

I saw with my own eyes, a whole city turn out and applaud being locked down and frog marched at gun point out of their homes, for what amounted to, in the end, nothing.

Yep.

 

[Carlybee]

I don't really disagree with you, but I do perceive a serious problem. Who is to say what the difference is between a riot and, say, the Whiskey Rebellion? Further, once a force is equipped to stop rioting or rebelling mobs, will they not seek out justifications to use that equipment, thus expanding and encroaching power in the exact way we all (supposedly) hate?

Finally, I would add that in the original Framer's model the quelling of such mega-riots would have been handled by the local citizens on the ground in their capacity as militia, and then the riots would not be quelled so much as property being protected from damage or looting, and let the riot run it's course.

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.

If every able-bodied soul were armed and had some experience at the militia, then the Mayor could have said, "A destructive riot is now in progress. All measures are authorized to the unorganized militia to defend against theft and looting. Unauthorized trespass will be considered intent to loot." you could lay in a covered defense behind storefronts and just drop anybody that breaks in. pretty soon everyone else will get the message: riot all you want but break into property and you die. It won't be long if that becomes the common practice, where people riot all the time with almost no real property damage. Which frankly would be fine by me. Let people outrage. It is their right as Americans. Don't let them destroy people's property when they do.

IF we had a proper unorganized militia, then the actual police would only ever need to get barely over Andy Griffith. For anything really big just co-op with the local militia which would do the double-duty of ensuring that said action(s) had the real sanction of the public.

We of course do not have such a thing today, and in this age the question of what to do in an actual destructive riot is a lot more perplexing. Asking to police to quell riots (put down insurrections) is pretty much equivalent to asking for encroaching abuse and eventual tyranny. Until we can fix the underlying problems in the balance of power, perhaps a bridge over the gap would be deploying the National Guard in a "defense of property only" role with a similar ROE to the militia I described above.

Part of the solution also is the ability to defund these police departments but I think DHS works with them and gives them grants beyond just providing the military gear. Some of this needs to start at the local level. If your city officials and mayors are allowing it to happen, changes need to occur.