Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

This again, only different. Kind of. Follow

#152 Aug 21 2014 at 1:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Maybe Hannah? Have you taught her about why people lose fights with the ATF yet?

Not per se, but I think "Don't be an asshole" probably covered it.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#153 Aug 21 2014 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I was hoping they'd use drones at the Bundy ranch, but I suppose that only works when there's a wedding.

Boom! Mean Samira is the most fun.


G.R.R. would be proud.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#154 Aug 21 2014 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I can think of some weapons manufacturing companies that would benefit from an arms race between the ATF and the Lone Star state.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#155 Aug 22 2014 at 1:29 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
They should have just used some of those militarized bulldozers. Just roll up and give em an hour or two before you start flattening the place. Edit: for the freedom ranch place.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2014 9:30am by Aethien
#156 Aug 22 2014 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Edit: for the freedom ranch place.
Applicable to all locations.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#157 Aug 22 2014 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Mmmm, freedom ranch. Now I want buffalo wings...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#158 Aug 22 2014 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
.
Screenshot
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#159 Aug 22 2014 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Freedom!

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#160 Aug 22 2014 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Some updates.

1. No, Officer Wilson's eye orbital was not smashed. He did have a bit of swelling where the door smacked him, though.

2. Ferguson PD has no police report because they handed it over to the St. Louis County PD to file. They approved it 10 days after the incident occurred. This might be standard procedure in a man-down situation (and makes sense), but they could have said this a while ago when the FOIA requests were filed to them.

3. National Guard has been recalled since the situation has de-intensified a bit.

4. Officer GFY has been put on administrative leave without pay pending further investigation. His great sin was cursing on camera, it seems. Not threatening journalists, oh no, just getting caught doing it.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2014 11:39am by Catwho
#161 Aug 23 2014 at 10:00 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Ferguson PD has no police report because they handed it over to the St. Louis County PD to file. They approved it 10 days after the incident occurred. This might be standard procedure in a man-down situation (and makes sense), but they could have said this a while ago when the FOIA requests were filed to them.

Harder than you'd think once the FOIA process starts.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#162 Aug 26 2014 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm just pointing out that this perception is false. This is the gear that police would use regardless of the situation

It's not. It's recent. Here's police during the Rodney King riots. Even the armored guys were clearly police, no jungle camo, no military fatigues. You want to know who was dressed like this? The National Guard -- i.e. the military. Not the police, the military.


Yeah. Want to know when that started to change? In 1997 after the police found themselves woefully outgunned by some bank robbers in LA (which is 5 years after the King riots). From that point on, all police departments in all major metro areas have endeavored to obtain body armor and equipment for dealing with those sorts of situations. Not just to have them, but to be able to rapidly deploy police units outfitted with such gear.

Quote:
Quote:
We can debate how they got the equipment

There is no debate.


Ok. Bad wording on my part. My point is that arguing about how they got the gear isn't the point. It's not like the military just sold police departments a bunch of surplus stuff and the police said "well golly gee. We don't know what to do with this stuff, but it's really cool, so we'll use it". The police were actively working to obtain such gear all along, and the availability of a bunch of it as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wound down just provided an opportunity to do so.

Look at the one photo with the heavily armed and armored cop. Care to guess what conflict that was surplus from? This is not new. He's wearing Vietnam era gear. The National Guard units were wearing more modern gear for the time period. Nothing new there. So guess what? The armored cops of today are wearing gear appropriate to the surplus gear available today. And in 15 years, if we don't have any more major conflicts, they'll still be wearing that same gear. And the people then will point to the old outdated stuff the cops are wearing and contrast it to the armored waldo's the military and NG units are wearing, just like you did in the King photos.

Quote:
Quote:
The question is whether it's fair to blame the police for using that equipment in this case, and I honestly don't think it is.

That may be but making specious comparisons to Sandy Hook doesn't help your argument.


It was just the first thing that popped in my mind of a scene where there were tons of cops in similar gear, yet at the time they were walking around where we could see them on TV, there was no armed threat of any kind at all. The lone gunman had taken his own life hours earlier, yet we still saw armored police vehicles and cops running around in full tactical gear. Yet in that case, the images were interpreted as reassurances to the public that the police where there to protect them, while in this case it's somehow about the cops being too geared up?

Objectively, it makes no sense to complain about the level of gear worn by police forces actively involved in a situation where they could be shot at any moment (and will almost certainly have things thrown at them), but no one blinks when they're walking around doing nothing more than securing an area hours after any possibility of violence has ended. It just seems backwards to me. I get that this is about inflaming the "violent cop" aspect to this. But I really do feel like it's a contrived thing. If you want to get involved in violence with the cops, you can always do so. They aren't the ones choosing to be out there. The rioters are. They'd gladly put their gear up and stay at home if the consequence wasn't people being injured or killed, store windows being smashed, buildings being burned, cars being damaged, etc. The police have no choice but to be there. The people rioting (peacefully protesting!) do.


Want the violence to stop? Everyone stay home. Don't march around town at night. Don't throw bricks and bottles at the cops. Heck. If the protesters don't protest, then there wont be any cops there at all. One side is creating and sustaining this conflict, and it's not the Ferguson police department.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Aug 26 2014 at 6:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. Want to know when that started to change? In 1997 after the police found themselves woefully outgunned by some bank robbers in LA (which is 5 years after the King riots).

Not really. It mainly exploded after 9/11 and the expansion of the federal program. Again, we're not talking "A city should have a well equipped SWAT team for special situations" here but rather the entire police force dressed as soldiers and cruising around in mine resistant armored vehicles for crowd control purposes. One is an appropriate response to a couple well armed bank robbers, the other isn't.

[Edit: Prior to 9/11, the major driving force wasn't scary bank robbers with AR-15s but rather the overhyped drug war. At least that was a little more under control. Once police forces started getting daydreams about fighting off Al'Qaeda terrorists at the Twin Pines Shopping Mall, it was all systems go, full speed ahead]

Quote:
It's not like the military just sold police departments a bunch of surplus stuff and the police said "well golly gee. We don't know what to do with this stuff, but it's really cool, so we'll use it".

That's pretty much exactly what's been happening. Also, the program has a "use or lose" style provision which incentivizes finding reasons to use these new toys regardless of how appropriate it is.

Quote:
Yet in that case, the images were interpreted as reassurances to the public that the police where there to protect them, while in this case it's somehow about the cops being too geared up?

It's pretty telling that you think this is actually an argument.

Edited, Aug 26th 2014 7:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#164 Aug 27 2014 at 12:14 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's not like the military just sold police departments a bunch of surplus stuff and the police said "well golly gee. We don't know what to do with this stuff, but it's really cool, so we'll use it".

Actually it's *exactly* like that. Funny when you assume something is true and it turns out the opposite is factually correct, or as you refer to it: "thinking".
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#165 Aug 27 2014 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's not like the military just sold police departments a bunch of surplus stuff and the police said "well golly gee. We don't know what to do with this stuff, but it's really cool, so we'll use it".

Actually it's *exactly* like that. Funny when you assume something is true and it turns out the opposite is factually correct, or as you refer to it: "thinking".


My point was that the police departments were already looking for this kind of equipment prior to it becoming widely (and cheaply) available via military surplus. What was preventing departments from having armored vehicles and tactical gear in 1998 wasn't a lack of interest or need, but the cost and availability. I'm countering the suggestion that the military somehow forced the police to take this stuff even though they didn't want it, didn't need it, and didn't know how to use it.

If this same gear had been available to police departments in the late 90s for the same price, they would have obtained it then. It's not that the police departments changed, or that we've made them "more militarized" (or our society as a whole is more militaristic) somehow as a result of evil George Bush and his war on terror.

Edited, Aug 27th 2014 3:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#166 Aug 27 2014 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not that the police departments changed,
They have.


gbaji wrote:
or that we've made them "more militarized"
We have.

gbaji wrote:
(or our society as a whole is more militaristic)
It is.


gbaji wrote:
somehow as a result of evil George Bush and his war on terror.
It is (partially).

Funny how your amazing observational skill missed all that though.Smiley: rolleyes

EDIT: Forgot the snark.

Edited, Aug 27th 2014 5:33pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#167 Aug 27 2014 at 5:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm countering the suggestion that the military somehow forced the police to take this stuff

Nobody said that...
Quote:
a result of evil George Bush and his war on terror.

...or that

I guess debates are easier to win when you just make up the other side as you go along.

"But you said 9/11!" Gbaji pouts. I did, and I was referring to the nation at large and the same mindset that gave us towns that felt the need to post the "Threat Level" on billboards and the sincere belief that the Harper Hills County Fair was a potential Al'Qaeda target for their next attack. Which was the real spur for police departments requesting this stuff and the DoD distributing it. Not "But... but... LA bank robbers! And Sandy Hook!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Aug 27 2014 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
My point was that the police departments were already looking for this kind of equipment prior to it becoming widely (and cheaply) available via military surplus.

No, your point was that the post 9/11 changes that removes essentially every barrier stiffer than a eunuch's member didn't lead to an excess of military style equipment in the hands of civilian law enforcement. Which was wrong. Because you were wrong. It is in no way complicated.

Your new story of your point being that it was demand from police departments that drove this change and not the massive increase in supply is fascinating considering your entire market philosophy relies on exactly the opposite being true. I mean, I realize you probably don't understand the contradiction, but you being stupid doesn't always make it less amusing.

You should probably proceed to Roger yourself rectally at this point, likely resulting in your untimely passing.

Good luck.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#169 Aug 27 2014 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"But you said 9/11!" Gbaji pouts. I did, and I was referring to the nation at large and the same mindset that gave us towns that felt the need to post the "Threat Level" on billboards and the sincere belief that the Harper Hills County Fair was a potential Al'Qaeda target for their next attack. Which was the real spur for police departments requesting this stuff and the DoD distributing it. Not "But... but... LA bank robbers! And Sandy Hook!"


And that's where we disagree though. On two things (at least):

1. That the events of 9/11 and/or terrorism in general has had anything at all to do with police forces utilizing "military style" gear (except to the point that the WOT has made a good amount of relatively new surplus gear available of course). As I pointed out earlier, police forces have long geared themselves with whatever the latest military surplus was available to them. Some of the police in the Rodney King riots were wearing surplus Vietnam gear, for example. As times have gone by, the desire for police to have greater tactical capability has grown, but I simply don't agree that 9/11 was the cause of this. It's a process that has been going on for some time before 9/11.

2. That the type of equipment the police are wearing in any way at all justifies the response from the rioters and protest groups. As if the gear the cops are wearing causes them to riot, to burn down buildings and smash windows and throw rocks. This is denial of responsibility to the utmost degree. The violence is not occurring because of the police response, the police response is occurring because of the violence. And I for one and getting sick and tired of all these pundits rushing to whatever TV microphone is handy to blame the cops for what's going on. And yes, the whole "but they're so militarized" is just complete BS that is being used to aggravate the situation. Doubly so when it's coupled with the massive racial undertones already present.


As I've been saying all along, we can debate (or argue or whatever) *why* the police have that gear, but that's completely beside the point with regards to the violence going on. Focusing on what the cops are wearing is ignoring what's actually happening. And part of what's happening is groups of people actively egging on the violence in Ferguson. And one of the many tactics they're using is the whole "police are wearing military gear!!!". Um... So what? It does not matter what they wear. But that does not stop journalists from going out of their way to tell their viewers/readers/listeners that Ferguson looks like a 3rd world country because of the gear the police are wearing. Stop saying that guys. It looks like a third world country because you've got a bunch of thugs roaming the streets committing acts of violence and the people who could put a stop to it are hindered in doing so by a media that is just itching to blame them if they so much as point a finger at someone in a way that looks a bit rude.


That's the real problem in Ferguson. The police in Ferguson have displayed amazing restraint in the face of what looks like a determined effort to create a violent response so the cameras can show it and inflame yet more violence. Notice that the film crews rarely bother to show the public the violent protests and looting and rioting that precedes the police response. They just show you the aftermath, when the cops are moving through the area clearing things up. So you're not seeing the majority of cops who are wearing normal gear and standing around with the folks who are actually assembling peacefully. You're only seeing the minority of cops wearing the tactical gear who are clearing out the areas the rioters were just in.

But hey. Feel free to blame it all on the gear the cops are using. Cause that make so much sense. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Aug 27th 2014 7:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Aug 27 2014 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And that's where we disagree though.

*Shrug*

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#171 Aug 27 2014 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you're not seeing the majority of cops who are wearing normal gear and standing around with the folks who are actually assembling peacefully.
Does FOX show this sort of footage a lot? I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV news.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#172 Aug 27 2014 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
"But you said 9/11!" Gbaji pouts. I did, and I was referring to the nation at large and the same mindset that gave us towns that felt the need to post the "Threat Level" on billboards and the sincere belief that the Harper Hills County Fair was a potential Al'Qaeda target for their next attack. Which was the real spur for police departments requesting this stuff and the DoD distributing it. Not "But... but... LA bank robbers! And Sandy Hook!"


And that's where we disagree though. On two things (at least):

1. That the events of 9/11 and/or terrorism in general has had anything at all to do with police forces utilizing "military style" gear (except to the point that the WOT has made a good amount of relatively new surplus gear available of course). [/i]

9/11 wa directly responsible for the dept of homeland security. Only it wasn't simply local law enforcement that were burdened with military stuff. I personally was shipped off to alabama and stuck in a chamber with sarin gas cuz, you know, podunk hazmat teams had to prepared to fight the terrorists. Hospitals, fire depts and police were geared up with all the latest gizmos and gadgets. Most of which now, a decade later is rotting in storage. At least ferguson got to use some of their military toys.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#173 Aug 27 2014 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Honestly, this is someone who just equivocated a few special officers during the LA riots wearing plain green body armor over their blue police uniforms with the stuff on display in Ferguson. Hence the shrug. It's not even worth arguing with him about it. He did pull a "Blame it all on..." strawman though so if you're playing Gbaji Logical Fallacies bingo at home, add one to your card.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#174 Aug 28 2014 at 7:19 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Does FOX show this sort of footage a lot?
Everyone is showing footage of it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#175 Aug 28 2014 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you're not seeing the majority of cops who are wearing normal gear and standing around with the folks who are actually assembling peacefully.
Does FOX show this sort of footage a lot? I wouldn't know. I don't watch TV news.

How would gbaji know? He doesn't get his news from anywhere.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#176 Aug 28 2014 at 9:53 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
So you're not seeing the majority of cops who are wearing normal gear and standing around with the folks who are actually assembling peacefully.

Weird. It's especially strange because when Black Panthers were hanging out at polling stations, I didn't see anything about it because it was lost in all the stories of 40 something bespectacled polish guys working as election judges, because that was equally interesting to the masses. Clearly Obama is sending marching orders to the lamestream media about this, because he'd like nothing more than to take guns away...from police...or at least armor. Or something. Probably for the Kenyan invasion.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 361 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (361)