Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

US Military "training for urban environments"

military marshal law civil war

  • Please log in to reply
163 replies to this topic

#151    Scheming B

Scheming B

    Monster Slayer

  • Member
  • 4,806 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:28 PM

View PostLikely Guy, on 07 August 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

...as a last resort.

Of course it'd be last.....the person's dead theres no other resorts left

Stop being frightened. You only see a monster because they want you to see monsters everywhere. They've conditioned you to look for monsters in every shadow, every coat hung on every door. As long as we keep seeing monsters, we'll continue to need protection and that's how other people get to control our lives.


#152    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 08 August 2013 - 07:16 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 August 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:


SWAT teams round the country do horrible things.  Military tactics and weapons should be reserved for the military.
So we should restrict our LEOs to pistols and clubs when faced with criminals and gangs that are arming themselves with illegally owned automatic assault rifles/military style weaponry?

Considering that, I fail to see your reasoning why military and law enforcement should not be able to share tactics and knowledge of weaponry.   You see it as a bad thing, where as I see it as a necessary and useful learning tool.

We live in a country that allows ownership of high powered rifles and fully automatic weapons albeit only allowed in certain states.

What good is a 9mm pistol, .45 semi, shotgun, or taser going to do when an LEO is faced against automatic weapons?

Spare me the ignorance in your posts please.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#153    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,812 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 08 August 2013 - 09:19 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 August 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

RB

That any one group can "learn" from another group is not exactly profound information, and certainly I agree with that simple point.

Had you made that statement in the earlier post I probably would not have replied.

The bigger point is that the missions of the 2 groups--military and law enforcement--are vastly different.  When law enforcement emulates the military, we have a problem, Houston.  And as Balko develops so well in his WSJ article, we allowed that to happen in the name of the pernicious drug policy we have.

2 vastly different missions, 2 vastly different organizations.  We have blended them, and are steadily and increasingly paying the price as a society.

Today in Miami a boy was tasered for the horrible crime of painting graffiti, and he died.  A quasi-military tactic applied to what in thee old days would have been handled by a "peace officer."  How quaint.

SWAT teams round the country do horrible things.  Military tactics and weapons should be reserved for the military.

As RB points out, certain situations require military style weapons and tactics. In light of this, either police forces have these available to them, or, if they don't, the military would have to be used to deal with these situations domestically. Since you're a huge advocate of the military NOT being employed domestically, what other alternatives are there?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#154    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Unsafe at Any Speed

  • Member
  • 24,073 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 09 August 2013 - 06:31 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 08 August 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

So we should restrict our LEOs to pistols and clubs when faced with criminals and gangs that are arming themselves with illegally owned automatic assault rifles/military style weaponry?

Considering that, I fail to see your reasoning why military and law enforcement should not be able to share tactics and knowledge of weaponry.   You see it as a bad thing, where as I see it as a necessary and useful learning tool.

We live in a country that allows ownership of high powered rifles and fully automatic weapons albeit only allowed in certain states.

What good is a 9mm pistol, .45 semi, shotgun, or taser going to do when an LEO is faced against automatic weapons?

Spare me the ignorance in your posts please.
But the whole point, which is what Ruth was saying, was that there'd surely be the tendency for the Law Enforcement, if they have weapons that you can invade a small country with, to shoot first, if they've persuaded themselves that any Felon they might come across might be carrying a machine gun or whatever. The more heavily armed you are, the more paranoid you're going to get that everyone else is heavily armed and the only way to protect yourself is to take them out first. It's really heading into the realms of paranoia, that everyone else might be likely to shoot you if you don't shoot them first. That's a very different thing from carrying a gun for self defense, this is using them as an offensive weapon, it crosses the line way beyond what everyday law enforcement should be.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#155    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,311 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 August 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 08 August 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

So we should restrict our LEOs to pistols and clubs when faced with criminals and gangs that are arming themselves with illegally owned automatic assault rifles/military style weaponry?

Considering that, I fail to see your reasoning why military and law enforcement should not be able to share tactics and knowledge of weaponry.   You see it as a bad thing, where as I see it as a necessary and useful learning tool.

We live in a country that allows ownership of high powered rifles and fully automatic weapons albeit only allowed in certain states.

What good is a 9mm pistol, .45 semi, shotgun, or taser going to do when an LEO is faced against automatic weapons?

Spare me the ignorance in your posts please.

No, once again you put words into my mouth.  No, I don't think police should be restricted to billy clubs and whistles or .38 revolvers.  No, RB, I don't advocate for that.  To have an AR15 in the back of a squad car is fine by me.

No, it's a bit more nuanced than you might be able to appreciate.

In the first place, as Balko points out in his WSJ article, our insane drug prohibition has driven all this.  The prohibition should be repealed forthwith, and that will solve alot of the problems regarding violence on the streets, just as LEAP advocates.

Military tactics and equipment are not appropriate for civilian law enforcement.  This country did just fine with the idea of "peace officers" for about 150 years of its existence.  We don't need armored personnel carriers and such, and we don't need cops dressed up with face coverings, looking like criminals themselves.

It's a complex situation RB, and I suspect you understand that.


#156    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,311 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 09 August 2013 - 01:00 PM

View PostStellar, on 08 August 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

As RB points out, certain situations require military style weapons and tactics. In light of this, either police forces have these available to them, or, if they don't, the military would have to be used to deal with these situations domestically. Since you're a huge advocate of the military NOT being employed domestically, what other alternatives are there?

The other alternative, as I mentioned in the previous post, is to implement a rational public policy that will end the root cause of much of the violent social problems--repeal the pernicious drug policy.

We do not need a soldier on every corner as they have in so many South American countries.  Think Posse Comitatus.

There are many things that could be done to reduce violence, but it would require an honest and intelligent evaluation of the causes of this violence.


#157    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 August 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

No, once again you put words into my mouth.  No, I don't think police should be restricted to billy clubs and whistles or .38 revolvers.  No, RB, I don't advocate for that.  To have an AR15 in the back of a squad car is fine by me.

No, it's a bit more nuanced than you might be able to appreciate.

In the first place, as Balko points out in his WSJ article, our insane drug prohibition has driven all this.  The prohibition should be repealed forthwith, and that will solve alot of the problems regarding violence on the streets, just as LEAP advocates.

Military tactics and equipment are not appropriate for civilian law enforcement.  This country did just fine with the idea of "peace officers" for about 150 years of its existence.  We don't need armored personnel carriers and such, and we don't need cops dressed up with face coverings, looking like criminals themselves.

It's a complex situation RB, and I suspect you understand that.

Complex situations need complex solutions, I sincerely hope you understand that.

No I didn't put words in your mouth.  You specifically stated military tactics and weaponry shouldn't be given to LEOs.  Did you not notice in one of my posts above I stated SWAT, ICE, etc.  Those are specialized LEO groups that handle the more "complex situations" you are talking about.

Are you selflessly being ignorant at the fact that many criminals carry illegally owned high power automatic weapons?  

The simple solution to dealing with such threats is tactical preparation and matched weaponry.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#158    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 09 August 2013 - 05:10 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 August 2013 - 01:00 PM, said:

The other alternative, as I mentioned in the previous post, is to implement a rational public policy that will end the root cause of much of the violent social problems--repeal the pernicious drug policy.

We do not need a soldier on every corner as they have in so many South American countries.  Think Posse Comitatus.

There are many things that could be done to reduce violence, but it would require an honest and intelligent evaluation of the causes of this violence.

Start a new thread regarding the changes you would have made to the drug policy and how it will stop the inherent militarization of law enforcement please.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#159    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,311 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 August 2013 - 01:15 PM

Why?


#160    Scheming B

Scheming B

    Monster Slayer

  • Member
  • 4,806 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:38 PM

Its a bit off topic to the issue in the initial post of the thread.

or he's just saying "you come up with something better."

motivation is a tough read in a text based format

Stop being frightened. You only see a monster because they want you to see monsters everywhere. They've conditioned you to look for monsters in every shadow, every coat hung on every door. As long as we keep seeing monsters, we'll continue to need protection and that's how other people get to control our lives.


#161    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,311 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 11 August 2013 - 12:17 PM

View PostSkepticalB, on 10 August 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Its a bit off topic to the issue in the initial post of the thread.

or he's just saying "you come up with something better."

motivation is a tough read in a text based format

We're talking about the role (if any) of the military in domestic affairs.  I have cited the Third Amendment and Posse Comitatus as relevant to that subject.

I have also introduced Balko's article in WSJ as being relevant, and Balko rightly points out the drug prohibition's influence regarding the thread topic.

RB wants me to start a new thread because he would rather not discuss the relevance of Balko's points.  He dodges the discussion because it might be going where he personally doesn't want to go--drug policy and its corrosive effect on american society, INCLUDING the militarization of the police forces.

That's 'why'


#162    Scheming B

Scheming B

    Monster Slayer

  • Member
  • 4,806 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2013
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 August 2013 - 07:25 PM

Good work, answering your own question. I'm impressed

Stop being frightened. You only see a monster because they want you to see monsters everywhere. They've conditioned you to look for monsters in every shadow, every coat hung on every door. As long as we keep seeing monsters, we'll continue to need protection and that's how other people get to control our lives.


#163    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 4,202 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 13 August 2013 - 05:42 AM

Better yet. Let's change the title of the thread to 'Law Enforcement Officers "training for military environments"', and ship it off to the US politics forum. That would be easier.

Where is the 'conspiracy' here? This thread is so off course that I need a GPS to get back to the OP. :)

Edited by Likely Guy, 13 August 2013 - 05:48 AM.


#164    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,311 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 August 2013 - 01:34 PM

LG

With all due respect my friend, my guess is that if there really were a conspiracy involved (and I'm not alleging there is), you might be the last person, well, almost last person to perceive it. :innocent:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users