I think it is a silly stance to condemn something you have no experience in. It takes no specialized training to be a politician. Would you do the same of paramedics, doctors, nurses, firefighters, etc.?

 

This is just a silly comment. But yes if I thought something someone was doing was wrong I would comment on it. I guess you've never criticized a head coach of a sports team or a CEO of a company.

Senator Paul is the only "mainstream" politician I could even consider voting for. He's one who legitimately seems to take a common sense approach to politics. I love it, and if people would give him a fair chance to articulate his stance on the issues, I think he could garner a lot of support from all sides of the political spectrum.

 

And yes, to answer the original question, even though he's a Republican by party name, he's a Libertarian.

 

Amen

Do you have experience in police tactics? If you do this next sentence does not apply to you. It's funny to me that people with no experience in police tactics, people that have never had to work a riot or go in the front door of a house, act like they know what tactics police should or should not use. You are entitled to your opinion, but would you go into a doctors office and tell them how to do their job? I mean statistics show us that Doctors kill far more people in the United States every year by mistake than police do...why doesn't anyone tell them how to fix their issues?

 

I'm gonna argue that this stance is as weak as when NFL players dismiss the opinions of outside observers because "they haven't played the game." Like I'm incapable of watching things closely and forming an accurate opinion.

 

And for what it's worth, I've been a party to some of those instances you mention, and not just once. I'm not a cop. But I have eyes and can form rational opinions based on what I see, regardless of whether I've "played the game."

 

Gosh, I may even have friends who are cops who I can bounce questions off of.

 

You are cherry picking numbers that garner a reaction from people. Instead of examining why swat teams have been used more, you automatically assume they're just being over used. Never mind the fact that our world is changing quickly (terrorist attacks, mass shootings, etc) and that many departments that did not have a "SWAT" team felt it necessary to do so. They felt it was necessary because guess what people would say if the police do not respond fast enough or efficient enough to the next shooting? They were unprepared. They were flat footed. They failed. People want police fast, and they want them efficient.

 

So, you're telling me that having a SWAT unit available will speed up response times to an MVC? That's a weak justification for some podunk PD having that equipment available. Again, my home county of less than 9K people has cast-off military equipment that those officers can't keep their erection in control long enough to use responsibly.

 

The fact that they are used more doesn't mean they are used wrong. Mistakes happen, but I would be willing to bet they are few and far between.

 

They are not projecting that they are soldiers. You might perceive that, but there's a reason they have the words "POLICE" written on everything they use. In some places camo works much better for a SWAT team that might have to search/fight etc someone through a wooded area. Other people have pointed out that it helps them differentiate people. Sometimes it's just cheaper and easier to replace if it's damaged.

 

How in the world can you say that they are not projecting themselves as soldiers? C'mon, man. Everything about it screams military intimidation. I'm fine with BP vests. I'm fine with shields. I'm not fine with putting neighborhoods under siege.

 

 

They did not scale up anything. Many people have reported that there was gunfire every night in Ferguson. How many of those came from police? They were pelted with rocks, bricks, bottles and urine...and they did nothing but use non lethal tear gas, and rubber bullets. Many times several warnings were given to disperse or for people to keep moving. Once, even after a bottle landed right next to police in a video I watched, the police waited and gave orders to disperse. After another bottle...they finally started using tear gas. Tear gas is probably far safer for the police and the protesters/looters/rioters considering the next option is probably to go into the crowd. How many fights are going to happen then? How many people have been seriously injured, as a direct result of the police in Ferguson? How many of those people were innocent bystanders?

 

Good, bad, or indifferent, police in Ferguson immediately escalated everything to code blood red. Granted, it's too late now, but as I would like to think we all agree, less of a bunker approach by the local departments could have prevented this from becoming the mess it currently is.

 

 

As for the journalists, they are definitely a major part of the problem in Ferguson. They are an absolute embarrassment and some journalists have said that themselves. Many of them have ignored police instructions to disperse when bottles are being thrown, and some have joined the protesters in groups. How are the police supposed to differentiate between protesters, looters, and media...if they're all in one big group? I'm afraid too many "bloggers" are being considered journalists and I'm afraid too many of them forgot that they're not supposed to make themselves part of the story.

 

Journalists are gonna do what they do. Getting the story is paramount. I have dove into situations I never would dream of normally in the pursuit of getting the story. They don't become "part of the story" until somebody oversteps their bounds and makes them "part of the story." Pretty sure those guys filing their stories at McDonald's that night didn't want to be "part of the story." That's not what we do.

 

As far as your suggestions about "bloggers" not being journalists, then, OK, you might have something there. Are you with me when I suggest that KSR and others like them aren't "legit" and shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to cover UK hoops the way that "legit" journalism outlets do? I'm guessing your fellow UK fans might have problems with that.

 

There are good reasons why military uniforms look the way that they do and the same reasons apply to police department SWAT teams. First of all, if you dress like mall cops, then you will command the respect of a mall cop (no offense to mall cops). More importantly, officers in camo uniforms that blend into an urban setting do not make good targets and are more suitable for stealth assaults in hostage situations, etc.

 

There are situations where police officers are more effective when they stand out from their environment, but military-style uniforms have their place too.

 

Whatever happened to them wearing blue or black, like normal PDs do? I see zero real need for PDs to wear camo other than to strike fear in their opponents. And in this case, the opponents are mostly unarmed people. Isn't part of your problem that "mall cops" try to be too much like real cops?

 

I think it is a silly stance to condemn something you have no experience in. It takes no specialized training to be a politician. Would you do the same of paramedics, doctors, nurses, firefighters, etc.?

 

Don't ever call in to your local sportstalk show, then. You haven't played the game, so you're unqualified, as far as you and a lot of others are concerned.

 

I'm gonna argue that this stance is as weak as when NFL players dismiss the opinions of outside observers because "they haven't played the game." Like I'm incapable of watching things closely and forming an accurate opinion.

 

And for what it's worth, I've been a party to some of those instances you mention, and not just once. I'm not a cop. But I have eyes and can form rational opinions based on what I see, regardless of whether I've "played the game."

 

Gosh, I may even have friends who are cops who I can bounce questions off of.

 

So, you're telling me that having a SWAT unit available will speed up response times to an MVC? That's a weak justification for some podunk PD having that equipment available. Again, my home county of less than 9K people has cast-off military equipment that those officers can't keep their erection in control long enough to use responsibly.

 

How in the world can you say that they are not projecting themselves as soldiers? C'mon, man. Everything about it screams military intimidation. I'm fine with BP vests. I'm fine with shields. I'm not fine with putting neighborhoods under siege.

 

Good, bad, or indifferent, police in Ferguson immediately escalated everything to code blood red. Granted, it's too late now, but as I would like to think we all agree, less of a bunker approach by the local departments could have prevented this from becoming the mess it currently is.

 

Journalists are gonna do what they do. Getting the story is paramount. I have dove into situations I never would dream of normally in the pursuit of getting the story. They don't become "part of the story" until somebody oversteps their bounds and makes them "part of the story." Pretty sure those guys filing their stories at McDonald's that night didn't want to be "part of the story." That's not what we do.

 

As far as your suggestions about "bloggers" not being journalists, then, OK, you might have something there. Are you with me when I suggest that KSR and others like them aren't "legit" and shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to cover UK hoops the way that "legit" journalism outlets do? I'm guessing your fellow UK fans might have problems with that.

 

Whatever happened to them wearing blue or black, like normal PDs do? I see zero real need for PDs to wear camo other than to strike fear in their opponents. And in this case, the opponents are mostly unarmed people. Isn't part of your problem that "mall cops" try to be too much like real cops?

 

Don't ever call in to your local sportstalk show, then. You haven't played the game, so you're unqualified, as far as you and a lot of others are concerned.

 

I never said you couldn't form an opinion. I'm questioning ones qualifications to judge law enforcement tactics. Police, specifically specialized units, are trained professionals. Many train daily, or several times per month. I wouldn't tell them how to do their job. Who are you to tell them how to tactically enter a building?

 

Everyone can say what they want...I've never claimed otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion...

 

I'm sure your friends who are cops aren't asking you for tactical advice for traffic stops or warrant services. Maybe I'm wrong...

 

What is an MVC?

 

What has your home county used wrong? I will agree that some small departments that can't afford training probably shouldn't have some equipment. Trucks and things like that are harmless for the most part though...unless they start running people over.

 

As for the journalists in Ferguson...I don't expect you to be able to admit they are part of the problem. I've posted a link in one of these threads though where a photographer mentions how journalists, bloggers & photographers mixed in with protesters and ignored police commands to disperse when things were getting bad. Many joined in chants with protesters. I guess that isn't becoming part of the story either though.

 

I don't care if KSR gets to cover UK games to be honest. I rarely read it after games anyways.

 

As far as I know NYPD and LAPD still use black or blue swat uniforms. Many others use camo like they have for decades. You don't see a real need for police to wear camo because you don't know what you are talking about. I've already posted several reasons why they wear it.

 

Are you talking about SWAT teams opponents being mostly unarmed? Got anything to support that?

 

I've played sports all my life. I still wouldn't tell a defensive coordinator in the NFL how to coach or a QB what plays to run in the 2 minute offense. I've never been to med school, so I'd never tell a doctor how to do their job. This is the internet though...where very few people have police experience but everyone knows how to handle a situation better.

This is just a silly comment. But yes if I thought something someone was doing was wrong I would comment on it. I guess you've never criticized a head coach of a sports team or a CEO of a company.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. I would think one would want it to be an informed opinion, however.

Do you have experience in police tactics? If you do this next sentence does not apply to you. It's funny to me that people with no experience in police tactics, people that have never had to work a riot or go in the front door of a house, act like they know what tactics police should or should not use. You are entitled to your opinion, but would you go into a doctors office and tell them how to do their job? I mean statistics show us that Doctors kill far more people in the United States every year by mistake than police do...why doesn't anyone tell them how to fix their issues?

 

You are cherry picking numbers that garner a reaction from people. Instead of examining why swat teams have been used more, you automatically assume they're just being over used. Never mind the fact that our world is changing quickly (terrorist attacks, mass shootings, etc) and that many departments that did not have a "SWAT" team felt it necessary to do so. They felt it was necessary because guess what people would say if the police do not respond fast enough or efficient enough to the next shooting? They were unprepared. They were flat footed. They failed. People want police fast, and they want them efficient.

 

The fact that they are used more doesn't mean they are used wrong. Mistakes happen, but I would be willing to bet they are few and far between.

 

They are not projecting that they are soldiers. You might perceive that, but there's a reason they have the words "POLICE" written on everything they use. In some places camo works much better for a SWAT team that might have to search/fight etc someone through a wooded area. Other people have pointed out that it helps them differentiate people. Sometimes it's just cheaper and easier to replace if it's damaged.

 

They did not scale up anything. Many people have reported that there was gunfire every night in Ferguson. How many of those came from police? They were pelted with rocks, bricks, bottles and urine...and they did nothing but use non lethal tear gas, and rubber bullets. Many times several warnings were given to disperse or for people to keep moving. Once, even after a bottle landed right next to police in a video I watched, the police waited and gave orders to disperse. After another bottle...they finally started using tear gas. Tear gas is probably far safer for the police and the protesters/looters/rioters considering the next option is probably to go into the crowd. How many fights are going to happen then? How many people have been seriously injured, as a direct result of the police in Ferguson? How many of those people were innocent bystanders?

 

As for the journalists, they are definitely a major part of the problem in Ferguson. They are an absolute embarrassment and some journalists have said that themselves. Many of them have ignored police instructions to disperse when bottles are being thrown, and some have joined the protesters in groups. How are the police supposed to differentiate between protesters, looters, and media...if they're all in one big group? I'm afraid too many "bloggers" are being considered journalists and I'm afraid too many of them forgot that they're not supposed to make themselves part of the story.

 

If physicians were agents of the government entrusted with protecting the public without violating their rights then I would certainly be criticizing policies they adopt that conflict with those goals. What it appears you are misunderstanding is that I am not offering “advice” to a profession on how to do their jobs, I’m defending the individual rights of citizens when the policies adopted by the government come into conflict with them. When there is such a conflict, I think it’s better to err on the side of liberty.

 

Fortunately, one does not need to meet a minimum set of qualifications to question the actions of the government. There’s little doubt the jobs of the police could be done more easily, safely, and efficiently if there weren’t “rights” to get in the way. Indeed, “journalists are a major part of the problem” when it comes to that. To suggest that people are not qualified to question their governments or that their rights only exist when the government finds them agreeable is an argument that tends toward authoritarianism.

this whole back and forth reminds me of "you want me on that wall,,,,you need me on that wall"

 

 

If physicians were agents of the government entrusted with protecting the public without violating their rights then I would certainly be criticizing policies they adopt that conflict with those goals. What it appears you are misunderstanding is that I am not offering “advice” to a profession on how to do their jobs, I’m defending the individual rights of citizens when the policies adopted by the government come into conflict with them. When there is such a conflict, I think it’s better to err on the side of liberty.

 

Fortunately, one does not need to meet a minimum set of qualifications to question the actions of the government. There’s little doubt the jobs of the police could be done more easily, safely, and efficiently if there weren’t “rights” to get in the way. Indeed, “journalists are a major part of the problem” when it comes to that. To suggest that people are not qualified to question their governments or that their rights only exist when the government finds them agreeable is an argument that tends toward authoritarianism.

 

Nice job ignoring what I actually said. I questioned your qualifications to question TACTICS.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, it just didn't carry much weight imo.

 

I also never suggested police should violate anyone's rights. I'm not sure how camo, armored trucks or m16s violate anyone's rights? Especially considering citizens can purchase alot of the stuff police get from the military.

 

And I'm not sure how you did it exactly but you completely ignored or just didn't understand my point about the media in Ferguson.

this whole back and forth reminds me of "you want me on that wall,,,,you need me on that wall"

 

 

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.

 

Unfortunately, I think that most people greatly fail to appreciate the job that is done by the police and military. Neither is an easy job, and it is easy to be a Monday morning QB and critique their actions whether warranted or not. I'm glad I do not have to do their job.