Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ideally they still shouldn't see themselves as superior to civilians in general. Maybe superior to lazy people.

edit
A lot of law enforcements have vests they wear under their duty shirts. Think one is called Dragon Scales

Jihadin wrote:You have it in the military though

The military is different, though there is an argument that such a culture is also harmful in that context.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.

Submachineguns aren't needed for 99% of law enforcement activities in my city either, so why have I seen them in the streets of my city?

What city?

And let's make sure your definition of submchinegun is accurate. You do mean fully automatic weapons in pistol caliber, right?

I guess I'm doubting the accuracy of your statement. US LE forces don't patrol with weapons out, keep any long arms (shotguns/rifles/carbines) in patrol vehicles or armories at the station, unless they are in the process of responding to a sitution that warrants the use of those weapons.

Jihadin wrote:
1.Who are the leaders of the Occupy Wall Street Movement?
2.Are the goals of the Occupy Wall Street clearly focused?
3.What does Occupy Wall Street want the government and business leaders to do, and when should it be done?

Anyone can be a leader of this movement. The goals are clearly focused: economic and social justice. OWS wants government and business leaders to work with the rest of society to create a system of economic and social justice, starting right now.

Monster Rain wrote:Is there any other way to compel compliance in someone who has stated that they refuse to, well, comply?

It's the context that is important. We aren't talking about someone who is waving a gun around, or blocking police from stopping a violent crime. We are talking about people sitting on a path, or standing in the streets, or setting up a tent. Words and patience are what is required, not weapons and violence.

You be suprised what some law enforcement have in their trunk.

We are talking about people sitting on a path, or standing in the streets, or setting up a tent.

Hence breaking the law by blocking a path and/or street. I'm sure Law Enforcement gives plenty of warning to them. Like Lt. Pike on one youtube video going down the line of the students and informing them to comply to law. Tents are not a form of protest. Its squatting and there are laws against squatting.

Manchester, NH. I know an H&K MP5 or UMP when I see one.

And I don't see them regularly; but have seen them on multiple occasions in the worse neighborhoods of my city. IMO, if the situation calls for an MP5, it probably also calls for a helmet. If the situation has been contained and you're not wearing a helmet, you probably don't need to be standing casually on the street corner cradling an MP5.

Mannahnin wrote:
Submachineguns aren't needed for 99% of law enforcement activities in my city either, so why have I seen them in the streets of my city?

As you know, I'm from a town very near where Adepticon is hosted. This is the train station about a 10 minute walk from my house:

Damn..they gave him a bad rifle. Army tried the collapsing buttstock on the M16's but constant use breaks the buttstock...wait...constant use...

edit
Nice shotgun though...beanbag rounds are fun to see on impact

Monster Rain wrote:Of course, people don't mind the "militarization" of the fire department when service members are mobilized to fight fires in Southern California and elsewhere.

Probably because instead of pepper spraying the residents they sprayed water on their burning houses.

Just saying that "militarization" isn't always a bad thing.

Also, no one from the military has pepper sprayed any OWS protesters AFAIK.

Kanluwen wrote:Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.

.

Police as seen every day of the year at Heathrow Airport.

Kanluwen wrote:
First of all, those aren't plate carrying vests. Those are load distributing vests--also referred to as "tactical" vests.
If you're going to argue that's paramilitary, then hunters and fishermen are wannabes as many commercially available vests have the same build.

Gosh they are called tactical vests aren't they? I must have forgotten what tactical means; WEBSTER!

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary wrote:tac·ti·cal
adj \ˈtak-ti-kəl\
Definition of TACTICAL
1
: of or relating to combat tactics

I believe hunters and fishers wear what are called "hunting vests" and "fishing vests"
Oh wait, I guess "first of all" I might have mentioned that they are outer carriers, or would you like to opine that all three of them left their $1100 ballistic vests at home?

This Phoenix PD officer must have just returned from his DEA raid when he was called in for this photo op.

Kanluwen wrote:Considering it's a photo op and I don't have the context, I'd say it was purposely staged for a reason. It's very possible that the officer is a member of a SRT or SWAT team, and not actually a "patrol officer". It's also possible that the photo is used for recruitment brochures distributed within the Phoenix PD for SWAT or SRT.

OR an article about a patrol officer and his use and endorsement of Tasers.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2007-06-21/news/taser-aftershock/

Kanluwen wrote:Public perception of law enforcement does affect how they're equipped, but I can tell you don't really care about that. You're just interested in saying that they're "paramilitarized" and insisting that it is a "new thing", when in fact since the late 1800s police agencies HAVE been paramilitary based organizations in terms of rank and dress.

keep circling back to this as many times as you'd like. Fire fighters have ranks and wear uniforms and I havent heard any argument that firefighters are paramilitary organizations, but go on.

In 1930, they started adding "training" to that list as well. People tend to feel safer when they know that their police agencies are equipped for any potential situation.

Oh I see what you are driving at, what is it called when non-military agencies use military training? Oh I remember now:paramilitary.

Kanluwen wrote:Tactical vests mean nothing, as I said before. I can buy a tactical vest as a civilian.

Because people wearing tactical vests walking around the mall are such a common occurrence, I mean every time I see this guy I just think to myself, "My what a well adjusted, normal member of society"

Kanluwen wrote:I can't buy a Kevlar vest or plate inserts for a tac vest(legally) though.

That's odd, I can. You must live in a different United States or Connecticut.

Kanluwen wrote:All a tactical vest means is that the officer has a fairly relaxed dress code. A "tac" vest is far more comfortable in many cases than all the trimmings you used to see on officers' belts.

It also means that instead of choosing a uniform style external carrier that the department deliberately choose a tactical style carrier.

Kanluwen wrote:Context is important.
Why are they at Mesa City Hall?

From the look, it appears that they are going to a briefing of some kind or potentially providing security for a meeting at City Hall.

Or a raid.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/10/17/20081017MCSOoperation1017.html

60 deputies and posse members armed with search warrants stormed City Hall and the public library in the middle of the night in a hunt for illegal workers.

City hall: den of thieves, harbor of illegal immigrants, and all around danger to society.

Kanluwen wrote:

AustonT wrote:Remember this one?

If you're going to argue militarization, you picked one of the worst possible examples.

The uniform has nothing military associated with it. The only "military" item one could associate with Pike is the helmet and lapel insignia. He's not wearing combat boots, he's not wearing a BDU, etc. He's wearing a button-up dress shirt with a rank insignia and badge on it and what looks like dress slacks and dress shoes.
He's wearing a helmet with a visor on it. He's wearing a belt with very little in the way of stuff on it: seemingly four small clips for a service issue pistol, likely a Beretta M9 which means around 32(8 shots per clip) shots total, and the pistol firmly secured in his holster.
The gloves he's wearing are likely puncture proof nitrile or leather, mostly worn when potentially dealing with searching individuals or taking them into custody.

I'm glad you pointed all that out, he's in "Riot Gear" and noticably less militarized in appearance than say...any picture I've posted vice the DPS officers. Point made for me; thank you.

Monster Rain wrote:Just saying that "militarization" isn't always a bad thing.

Sure, but militarization of the police is potentially dangerous and as a trend is a cause of reasonable concern. It can result in engendering attitudes in officers which are contrary to their best performance of their jobs in the community, and exacerbating tensions between them and the citizenry. Up-arming them can result in more fearful citizens, and risk greater danger if that force is misused due to bad judgment.

Monster Rain wrote:Also, no one from the military has pepper sprayed any OWS protesters AFAIK.

I don't think anyone here is demonizing the military. We're wargamers; most of us admire the military.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.

.

Police as seen every day of the year at Heathrow Airport.

A depressing sight indeed.

I remember being a lad and getting on a plane to Spain was as easy as getting on the train.

Alas.. 9/11 really did change the world in more ways than one.

Mannahnin wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Just saying that "militarization" isn't always a bad thing.

Sure, but militarization of the police is potentially dangerous and as a trend is a cause of reasonable concern. It can result in engendering attitudes in officers which are contrary to their best performance of their jobs in the community, and exacerbating tensions between them and the citizenry. Up-arming them can result in more fearful citizens, and risk greater danger if that force is misused due to bad judgment.

Surely they have reason to be making the changes that they are making?

I doubt they'd be able to get the city to spend money on submachine guns if they just wanted them in order to frighten law-abiding citizens.

Jihadin wrote:Damn..they gave him a bad rifle. Army tried the collapsing buttstock on the M16's but constant use breaks the buttstock...wait...constant use...

Did they? I thought there was just a warning to make a conversion from parts in the TM because the buffer and spring assembly from the M4 aren't tuned to the gas tube of an M16. Cant remeber if it's too fast for too slow but it messes with lock time, prety sure it causes failure to eject.
If use on an M16 caused breakage would it reasonably have the same problem on M4s?

edit
Nice shotgun though...beanbag rounds are fun to see on impact

you saw that too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why do both of those cops at Heatrow look like neandertards?

Monster Rain wrote:
I doubt they'd be able to get the city to spend money on submachine guns if they just wanted them in order to frighten law-abiding citizens.

City politicians benefit from the "tough on crime" stance just as much as national ones.

Yeah, but that's more from a standpoint of sentencing though isn't it?

I know that in New Hampshire, particularly, the populace would have a dim view of spending tax money unnecessarily.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And I suggest you read my statement again.
Comparing this movement to the Civil Rights movement is downright asinine.

No it's not. That's an insulting and I think deeply misguided statement. Both are nonviolent protest movements seeking to cause social change in response to social injustice.

The difference is that one was in fact a known, proven social injustice while the other is the realm of conspiracy theorists for the most part.

I don't think that characterization is at all accurate. It is not a conspiracy theory to observe that the banks (on and symbolized by Wall Street) were given bailouts with taxpayer money, and the people actually directly responsible for the financial crash of 2008 and its continuing aftereffects have not been held responsible. Neither criminally nor fiscally. They have been insulated from the consequences of reckless and dishonest acts, and the American middle class and poor are the ones continuing to suffer for it. Neither is it a conspiracy theory to observe the Citizens United ruling and see that is paves the way for more money and financial influence on elections from corporate and moneyed interests. Neither is it a conspiracy theory to observe that the majority of people in Congress are millionaires, and to be concerned that the way they represent the interests of their constituents is insufficiently taking into account the needs and interests of the people who have less money; which is the vast majority of us.

"Known, proven social injustice" I think is another misguided statement. The authorities and the white electorate in the South evidently did not think Jim Crow laws were unjust. Those laws had to be protested against to make the point that they were unjust and to force social change.

Kanluwen wrote:Is the government a bit more receptive to the economic quarter's problems than society at large? Of course. But you don't solve that by "occupying" Wall Street. You solve that by trying to push for more transparency in the ties between the political quarter and economic quarter's links, and then pushing to sever those ties ensuring that business does not get a toehold in politics again.

Want to tell that to MLK's son? Let's paraphrase that: "You don't change Jim Crow laws by marching in the streets or assembling in crowds on the National Mall. You do it by trying to push for more justice in the courts and in the legislature, then pushing to sever the ties of racists to politics." Do you see how that sounds? If the racists were entrenched (and they were) or the moneyed interests entrenched (and they are), then protesting publicly is a critical tool. How else do you push for those changes? Could a black man in Georgia in 1960 realistically run for office and have a chance at changing the system from the inside? Can the average middle-class American afford to run for Congress and have a prayer of winning a seat and making changes from within?

If I don't have money, but I have time, I can go out and protest. I don't personally have the time available to go protest, but I do have enough time to write letters to my representatives, and I have a few minutes this weekend to write comments like this to try to change the minds of guys like you and Monster Rain, who I think are reasonable and intelligent human beings, and whose opinions on this I honestly find misguided and disappointing.

Okay. Once again I think you've missed the point I'm getting across.

The Civil Rights movement knew what they were doing was illegal. They knew they would be facing the reactions they would be especially in Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama.

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is acting as though the reactions by the police [b]in enforcing the law of these areas which does not allow establishment of "settlements" without permits" are violating their Constitutional rights.

That's why I think comparing the two is asinine. Any reaction by the police is complained about as being completely and utterly unnecessary, even though in this case it's now established that what the officers said (their statement of "they were surrounded and being impeded from leaving") is in fact the truth and they behaved in good faith.

Kanluwen wrote:Another thing that irks me with the Civil Rights movement comparison is that these protesters are purposely provoking a reaction that is acceptable within any and all police department procedures for dispersing groups of people and then acting as if their Constitutional rights are being violated afterwards.

You're painting with an excessively-broad brush here, Kan. SOME of the protestors are undoubtedly provoking reactions they deserve. Others are undeniably peacefully protesting and getting inappropriately violent responses from trained professionals who should know better. In some cases they are undoubtedly breaking laws (like trespassing at Zucotti Park) in the belief that they are doing so as their best way of expressing their First Amendment rights to protest and to peacefully assemble. When the city allowed them to do so for an extended period, it seemed to grand tacit acknowledgment that this was a legitimate assembly under the First Amendment. Some lawyers, including ones part of or supportive of OWS, believe this to be a legitimate and legal protest. If a given protestor, in light of legal opinion or the city's tacit having allowed the overnight protests for an extended period, sees that seemingly granted/acknowledged right taken away suddenly, are they really out of line to complain that their Constitutional rights have been violated? Now, they may well be WRONG. But to pretend that they don't have any reason for thinking their protest/occupation was legal or legitimate is, I think, ill-considered at best and disingenuous at worst.

OF COURSE lawyers "part of or supportive of OWS" are saying that it's a legitimate or legal protest.

Kanluwen wrote:

You could make an argument that the things the Civil Rights movement were trying to change are worse, of course. You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still an inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.

To continually equate pepper spray to actual violence is silly. Does it involve potentially injuring someone?

Yes, it does. Would you like me to pepper spray you for fun? To try to pretend that it's not "actual violence" is offensive and absurd. Sure it's less dangerous and less injurious. That doesn't mean it's not painful. Or do you think pain doesn't count as violence if it doesn't cause lasting injury? You can't really believe that.

So would you rather they used their fists or batons?

The reason pepper spray is utilized is it's a "measurable force". We know what is being applied. We know how it affects individuals based on the quantities used.

Punches and batons can't reasonably measured when used in the field. It comes down to eyewitness and "expert" testimony.
And for the record, I've been sprayed with pepper spray. A few times actually when doing volunteer stuff with the RPD's training sessions to get extra credit for some of my law enforcement certification courses.

It's not that bad. It's uncomfortable, but for the most part it feels like a bad sunburn when you do not irritate it. People being people though, immediately start rubbing at their eyes, trying to use water to wash it out, etc. That makes it worse.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And no one is being killed for their beliefs.

Sure. As I said, the situation was certainly WORSE in the 60s. That doesn't mean the two movements are totally dissimilar.

Thinking they're similar does not necessarily mean they are, Mannahnin. That's what I've been trying to get across for quite awhile now.

Of course not. But you've also opined that they're not comparable, and gone further than that by claiming that any comparison is being "asinine". I disagree, and I take exception to your discourtesy. They are both nonviolent, public protest movements attempting to make social change by the means of creating a visible spectacle and demonstrate people's personal commitment to put themselves outside, exposed to the risk of arrest and potential violent response, in the pursuit of that change.

Once again.
It's the behavior of the OWS crowd that makes this so silly. You're right, maybe asinine is too discourteous or strong--but let's face it. There's a crowd of people violating the law and protesting, at this point, the fact that they were arrested for breaking laws when they first started protesting.

Machine guns aren't part of everyday law enforcement in a free society. Anyone who thinks they are needs a swift kick to the logic center.

I'm going with regular police officers on their normal duty day in public enforcing laws on this.

Airport Security is a different animal.

Tactical vest is a load bearing vest and does not protect vitals so is not "body armor" vest...btw..ebay has a nice selection of tactical body armor. Unless your looking for military specific

M16 with the M4 buttstock. It was the spring from the M16 cracking the M4 buttstock I was told. I asked this question to on one of our many "NCOPD" trining moment around the barrel fire

Why do both of those cops at Heatrow look like neandertards?

One looks like Bull from Night Court.....think its the hats...look how far the brims are down to their nose

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but that's more from a standpoint of sentencing though isn't it?

I know that in New Hampshire, particularly, the populace would have a dim view of spending tax money unnecessarily.

I've only very rarely heard a politician criticized for spending too much on law enforcement, and the most conservative state I've lived in is Minnesota (where there's a a viable labor party). This is further borne out by national surveys, which generally show law enforcement and crime prevention as issues with 70% or greater approval, especially at the local level.

Basically, if you want to get into politics, a safe bet for a platform is "tough on crime", which means that money for law enforcement is relatively easy to secure (so long as it doesn't involve raising taxes).

Thinking quite of bit of law enforcement officers have one thing in common..prior military

dogma wrote:I've only very rarely heard a politician criticized for spending too much on law enforcement, and the most conservative state I've lived in is Minnesota (where there's a a viable labor party). This is further borne out by national surveys, which generally show law enforcement and crime prevention as issues with 70% or greater approval, especially at the local level.

Basically, if you want to get into politics, a safe bet for a platform is "tough on crime", which means that money for law enforcement is relatively easy to secure (so long as it doesn't involve raising taxes).

Putting more 'bobbies on the beat' is always popular. Campaigning as being 'tough on crime' helps separate you from the other politicians who campaign as being 'soft on crime'.

dogma wrote:I've only very rarely heard a politician criticized for spending too much on law enforcement, and the most conservative state I've lived in is Minnesota (where there's a a viable labor party).

New Hampshah is a pretty different place.

I have heard people rant, quite vocally, about the amount spent on the police.

Rate crime in an area I believe influence the decision to buy/upgrade the local law enforcement current equipment

Kanluwen wrote:The Civil Rights movement knew what they were doing was illegal. They knew they would be facing the reactions they would be especially in Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama.

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement is acting as though the reactions by the police [b]in enforcing the law of these areas which does not allow establishment of "settlements" without permits" are violating their Constitutional rights.

That's why I think comparing the two is asinine. Any reaction by the police is complained about as being completely and utterly unnecessary, even though in this case it's now established that what the officers said (their statement of "they were surrounded and being impeded from leaving") is in fact the truth and they behaved in good faith.

You can non-violently allow yourself to be arrested and still complain that the law under which you have been arrested is unjust and unconstitutional. That's part of the darn point of getting arrested. That people see on the news that nice, reasonable, everyday people like themselves are being arrested and prosecuted unjustly, which hopefully serves as motivation to change the laws.

I certainly agree that the focus of the OWS movement shouldn't be focused on the laws regarding public spaces and trespassing. Absolutely that distracts from the more important points. But the right of ordinary people to peacefully and publicly assemble and petition the government (and the public) for redress of grievances is not a trivial thing. Again, I'm not a millionaire; I don't have the money to make my voice heard the way a millionaire can. But if I'm passionate enough about an issue I can expend my time and put my body and my face in that crowd, and hopefully draw attention to a problem which needs fixing. OWS people being willing to camp on the site of their protest and devote weeks on end to the cause is a demonstration of their commitment to it. It's absolutely akin to people in the Civil Rights Movement traveling to march in protests down the streets of Southern cities.

Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.

Kanluwen wrote:Another thing that irks me with the Civil Rights movement comparison is that these protesters are purposely provoking a reaction that is acceptable within any and all police department procedures for dispersing groups of people and then acting as if their Constitutional rights are being violated afterwards.

You're painting with an excessively-broad brush here, Kan. SOME of the protestors are undoubtedly provoking reactions they deserve. Others are undeniably peacefully protesting and getting inappropriately violent responses from trained professionals who should know better. In some cases they are undoubtedly breaking laws (like trespassing at Zucotti Park) in the belief that they are doing so as their best way of expressing their First Amendment rights to protest and to peacefully assemble. When the city allowed them to do so for an extended period, it seemed to grand tacit acknowledgment that this was a legitimate assembly under the First Amendment. Some lawyers, including ones part of or supportive of OWS, believe this to be a legitimate and legal protest. If a given protestor, in light of legal opinion or the city's tacit having allowed the overnight protests for an extended period, sees that seemingly granted/acknowledged right taken away suddenly, are they really out of line to complain that their Constitutional rights have been violated? Now, they may well be WRONG. But to pretend that they don't have any reason for thinking their protest/occupation was legal or legitimate is, I think, ill-considered at best and disingenuous at worst.

OF COURSE lawyers "part of or supportive of OWS" are saying that it's a legitimate or legal protest.

Okay, so if you are engaged in a questionably-legal protest, and your lawyer tells you that the law which forbids your form of protest is unconstitutional (at least in this application), and the police and city of New York for several weeks or months let you do it, do you not have reasonable grounds to believe that what you are doing is legal and Constitutionally-protected? Are you crazy and unreasonable to complain when one day your sit-in style protest is permitted, and the next suddenly it's not?

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

You could absolutely make the point that the responses to them were frequently more brutal, but if I (as an example) stand up and nonviolently protest something, and a police officer responds by either pepper-spraying me or sicking a dog on me, it's still an inappropriate and violent response. The dog or the bullet is certainly worse than pepper spray or a punch, but that doesn't make the less-violent but still violent response okay or appropriate.

To continually equate pepper spray to actual violence is silly. Does it involve potentially injuring someone?

Yes, it does. Would you like me to pepper spray you for fun? To try to pretend that it's not "actual violence" is offensive and absurd. Sure it's less dangerous and less injurious. That doesn't mean it's not painful. Or do you think pain doesn't count as violence if it doesn't cause lasting injury? You can't really believe that.

So would you rather they used their fists or batons?

The reason pepper spray is utilized is it's a "measurable force". We know what is being applied. We know how it affects individuals based on the quantities used.

You're dodging the point. I know exactly why it's supposed to be used and I'm glad it's an available tool. The point is that it can be and has been used inappropriately. Look at the photo of the officer just spraying down the row of people sitting peacefully on the ground (well; one's not sitting; that one's lying bleeding and injured on the ground). That guy should lose his badge. He has foresworn his oath of service.

Kanluwen wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: They are both nonviolent, public protest movements attempting to make social change by the means of creating a visible spectacle and demonstrate people's personal commitment to put themselves outside, exposed to the risk of arrest and potential violent response, in the pursuit of that change.

Once again.
It's the behavior of the OWS crowd that makes this so silly. You're right, maybe asinine is too discourteous or strong--but let's face it. There's a crowd of people violating the law and protesting, at this point, the fact that they were arrested for breaking laws when they first started protesting.

Again, most of them had reasonably convincing evidence to believe that their protest was legal, or constituted a legitimate exception to the law in question on Free Speech grounds. In my opinion the behavior of most of the protestors has not been particularly objectionable or unreasonable. Do you think the Tea Party guys who held up signs equating Obama to Hitler or declaring that his plans included "white slavery" were representative of the entire movement? The most extreme nutjobs in both movements get the most screentime and news coverage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but that's more from a standpoint of sentencing though isn't it?

I know that in New Hampshire, particularly, the populace would have a dim view of spending tax money unnecessarily.

Among some segments of the NH populace, but Libertarians are in the minority even here. "Get tough on crime" works fine here too. The reason we have such strict DWI laws is that one of our former Attorneys General made his career on making those laws stricter and more punitive. The Manchester PD is well-equipped.

Mannahnin wrote:
You can non-violently allow yourself to be arrested and still complain that the law under which you have been arrested is unjust and unconstitutional. That's part of the darn point of getting arrested. That people see on the news that nice, reasonable, everyday people like themselves are being arrested and prosecuted unjustly, which hopefully serves as motivation to change the laws.

Except they're not being arrested or prosecuted unjustly. They're being arrested (I haven't seen much in the way of prosecutions though) for doing something illegal.

I certainly agree that the focus of the OWS movement shouldn't be focused on the laws regarding public spaces and trespassing. Absolutely that distracts from the more important points. But the right of ordinary people to peacefully and publicly assemble and petition the government (and the public) for redress of grievances is not a trivial thing. Again, I'm not a millionaire; I don't have the money to make my voice heard the way a millionaire can. But if I'm passionate enough about an issue I can expend my time and put my body and my face in that crowd, and hopefully draw attention to a problem which needs fixing. OWS people being willing to camp on the site of their protest and devote weeks on end to the cause is a demonstration of their commitment to it.

Then why didn't they get the permits to do it? If they're so organized--they can do it.
They likely didn't get the permits simply because they knew there's no way any city would agree to people freaking camping out in public parks. It's not a question of squashing resistance or whatever ridiculousness gets spread about it. They present problems for sanitation, law enforcement (look at the reports of crime at some of these camps. We've got reports of rapes and more), and the community in question housing the protests.

It's absolutely akin to people in the Civil Rights Movement traveling to march in protests down the streets of Southern cities.

We're going to have to disagree on this point I guess. This really is sticking in my craw.

Am I glad that today's protestors aren't being met with dogs, water hoses, and truncheons? Absolutely. I think today's cops are (by and large) better people and better trained than the scumbags who were enforcers for racist laws and policies. But that doesn't mean that we should dismiss or disregard the comparison if and when today's officers do make inappropriate use of force.

You have yet to show that pepper spray's an "inappropriate use of force".

I know. You consider it to be, but that's not really an acceptable way to go.

OF COURSE lawyers "part of or supportive of OWS" are saying that it's a legitimate or legal protest.

Okay, so if you are engaged in a questionably-legal protest, and your lawyer tells you that the law which forbids your form of protest is unconstitutional (at least in this application), and the police and city of New York for several weeks or months let you do it, do you not have reasonable grounds to believe that what you are doing is legal and Constitutionally-protected? Are you crazy and unreasonable to complain when one day your sit-in style protest is permitted, and the next suddenly it's not?

Jihadin wrote:Tactical vest is a load bearing vest and does not protect vitals so is not "body armor" vest...btw..ebay has a nice selection of tactical body armor. Unless your looking for military specific

We think of a full on OTV as the only way to fly. Some officer and god forbid probably some NCO thought side plates, and water wings were good ideas too. Don't be fooled into thinking that if it doesn't look like OUR duck that it isn't one. There are plate carriers that look like uniform shirts without close inspection.

M16 with the M4 buttstock. It was the spring from the M16 cracking the M4 buttstock I was told. I asked this question to on one of our many "NCOPD" trining moment around the barrel fire

I remember running into a specific warning in either the -23 or -40 NOT to try a conversion. Its been a day or two, I'll bet that cop has a working conversion, maybe a longer buffer tube and a proper buffer and spring. If I remember those style rifles are called "dissipators"
The only real question is "why." the answer is actually pretty easy M4's don't work quite as smoothly as Colt would like you to believe. Something for another thread.

Mannahnin wrote: Look at the photo of the officer just spraying down the row of people sitting peacefully on the ground (well; one's not sitting; that one's lying bleeding and injured on the ground). That guy should lose his badge. He has foresworn his oath of service.

Eh, I don't know. He didn't look like he was doing that out of malice, he looked like he was doing that out of obligation. That's tenuous, but my guess is that there was an order to remove the protesters, and the the guy with the extra-strength Raid followed it. He's under some sort of moral hazard, but probably not enough to deserve being fired. I mean, he did what he was told with the least possible force, at least if my interpretation is correct and we're talking about the guy spraying the protesters obstructing the sidewalk.

Mannahnin wrote:
The reason we have such strict DWI laws is that one of our former Attorneys General made his career on making those laws stricter and more punitive. The Manchester PD is well-equipped.

If only I weren't a young long-hair, I too could have a political career.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
And without knowing what kind of pepper spray that is, I can't say exactly how strong it is. Given that it appears to be an aerosol rather than liquid (like most pepper sprays are), I'd say it's fairly weak.

The only distinction between aerosol and non-aerosol pepper spray is pressurization, there is no reason to assume its a weak formula on that basis.

Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, but that's more from a standpoint of sentencing though isn't it?

I know that in New Hampshire, particularly, the populace would have a dim view of spending tax money unnecessarily.

No, sub-machine guns give the impression that you are serious about enforcement. Perception is reality to voters.

Edit: For the record, I don't think Lt. Pike should be fired. I do think, a serious review of the chain of command, and perhaps the Chancellor of the school being fired is much more warranted. The problem is not the officer, it is the person or groups of people who initially gave him the orders to clear the protesters.