Riots and Looting...the best way to get "Justice"

[yukonjack]

I agree with the uniform part. Police officers should do riot control, and many other non standard jobs in their patrol uniform with the riot gear worn over the patrol uniform. The SWAT/SOT or whatever we are calling them today do need different equipment to do the job. Over the past 10 or so years we have seen more and more police departments going to different camouflage patterns for some silly reasons. We also have patrol officers for departments that patrol in 5.11 pants and polo's that needs to stop. There was a time when police officers looked like police officers. Your average patrol officer should look like a police officer. TPD has allowed officers to go with "outer vests" instead of standard under the shirt/inner bullet resistant vests. The outer ones look a bit to militaristic.

Trying wearing an inner vest when it's 100 degrees outside. They make outer vests that look sharp without looking like something SWAT should be wearing. During my carrer with the Alaska State Troopers we were given the choice to wear an inner or outer vest. The department paid for both but they also dictated what the outer vest looked like and had a list of vendors that could supply them. I will also say that the wearing of body armor was manadatory. If you stepped out of the office the vest had to be on and this was practiced from the highest ranks down.

I agree though too much of this military uniform look among civilian police forces has gone too far. While Andy and Barney always wore their uniforms Andy only strapped on his gun when things got really bad. Something has too change.

 

[dennishoddy]

A citizen with a weapon is well within his rights. A line of local cops advancing on citizens is a whole different thing. Even in a riot Cops have no business advancing with rifles.

Your trolling again.
Cops have no business advancing with rifles?

LOL...

 

[WTJ]

unruly miscreants is your word to describe protester.

Tell ya what you dress up and play Camo cop and ill play protester. Your trying to intimidate a citizen and im within the rights of the constitution.

Cops dont need to play military, they dont need to dress the part. Cops can accomplish the same thing they are doing tonight.

You know, I think I should share the breakdown of the word assumption with you some day. There is a twist however, in my version there is no "me".

Feel free to conduct any role-playing games you see fit. You do, surprisingly, still have that freedom. I will excuse myself. You would not enjoy me in the OPFOR role and would likely end up feeling that you had somehow been violated anyway.

Not a cop, don't care how cops dress nor have I ever been the Uniform Nazi-type.

They do accomplish a thankless job and I believe that, just like anyone else our society decides to send into Harm's Way so they can rest well in their beds, they should have the finest protective equipment available, regardless of color, type, or scary camo pattern.

I do recall many people crying about them wearing black no too long ago. Maybe you prefer pastels?

If they can go home alive at the end of their shift, and the only cost is you being butthurt and/or offended by their appearance, well then, that is a price I am only too happy to pay.

 

[dennishoddy]

You know, I think I should share the breakdown of the word assumption with you some day. There is a twist however, in my version there is no "me".

Feel free to conduct any role-playing games you see fit. You do, surprisingly, still have that freedom. I will excuse myself. You would not enjoy me in the OPFOR role and would likely end up feeling that you had somehow been violated anyway.

Not a cop, don't care how cops dress nor have I ever been the Uniform Nazi-type.

They do accomplish a thankless job and I believe that, just like anyone else our society decides to send into Harm's Way so they can rest well in their beds, they should have the finest protective equipment available, regardless of color, type, or scary camo pattern.

I do recall many people crying about them wearing black no too long ago. Maybe you prefer pastels?

If they can go home alive at the end of their shift, and the only cost is you being butthurt and/or offended by their appearance, well then, that is a price I am only too happy to pay.

Quit playing to the troll.

 

[WTJ]

This is the part that isnt being understood for some reason. There is a distinction between those within their rights and those outside of them, and both present different problems/solutions.
Anyone advocating for the actions of those under the color of authority like we have witnessed of late, repeatedly and without repercussions, against people exercising their rights is on the wrong side of the argument.

Agreed. I didn't weigh in on one side of this against the other. Frankly, at this point I don't think any of the actions are clear. I did find some perverse amusement in the treatment of the Fifth Columnists (formerly the Fourth Estate) but that was about the extent of my specific reaction at this time. Much like the old freedom fighter v terrorist discussion, the term rioter and protestor is contingent upon your position relative to the demarcation line.

 

[WTJ]

Quit playing to the troll.

I enjoy feeding the trolls and I don't even have to buy a Zoo ticket.

Besides, you rarely give me much opportunity to retort.

 

[tulsanewb]

Responses in blue:

Here's a simple definition of martial law: Martial law is the imposition of military power over designated regions on an emergency basis.

Based on the simple definition, you can see that sending "military power (National Guard Unit)" to a "designated region(Your City)" to react to "an emergency(protest/riot" falls under the definition.

Under this definition, yes, I would agree it would fit the definition of martial law. However, being that there is a legal definition of martial law, I think it is reasonable to assume when you speak of martial law most people associate that with the legal definition which includes the suspension of civil rights/habeas corpus.


Your assertion that a 'wildfire' and a 'riot' are similar is wondrous. In most states, the Fire Service has very limited policing powers and does not, with a few exceptions, fall under the application of lethal force guidelines.

I in no way said they were similar, I was pointing out a logical fallacy in your statement. I asked you, if by using National Guard troops to fight a wildfire, martial law was being imposed, as you asserted that the use of national guard troops in a state constituted martial law. To my knowledge, and if I am wrong I would be interested in know, the process for a governor calling up the NG for a fire is the same process for restoring peace, I am not aware of any distinction on the process as to whether they are carrying arms. Again, I freely admit I could be wrong about this, but could not find a source to indicate otherwise.

Additionally, I wasn't speaking of Martial Law under Title 10 or 32 USC. Actually, the majority of declarations of Martial Law in the U.S. have been done by State Governors using the NG under STATE control.

The deployment of Guardsmen under arms most definitely requires some declaration of emergency control. Regardless of what politically correct term you may prefer, it fits the definition.

See first answer. I will agree that if we are using the term Martial Law to just include the use of National Guard as police because the state does not have the capacity/ability, this would fit the definition you provided. However, again, I think it's safe to say that when speaking of Martial Law in the US, people associate it with the suspension of civil rights/habeas corpus. On this we both agree, and disagree, based on terminology.

Interestingly, the reference I cited was Socialist. I have, however, long suspected that Democrat was newspeak for Socialist. I truly appreciate the conformation. I also find it entertaining that you assumed that citing Fox News meant that I must be a Republican. You would be wrong.

Um, what? The article you cited may have been FROM a socialist site, but it was ABOUT democrats (it was titled "Democrats call for deployment of National Guard in Chicago")... are you saying if they did an article on Republicans that would be confirmation that Republicans were socialists? Also, I did not assume a political leaning for you, I merely pointed out that since you posted a link about Democrats, they are not the only ones who wish to deploy the NG for ongoing state issues.

Lastly, the Governor of Texas is using military forces under his control to respond to a foreign invasion. That would be a Constitutionally approved use of military assets. It's a damn shame that the NCA is derelict in their duties to 'protect and defend'.

Perry is deploying the NG at a state level using Texas State funds, so this would also be considered Martial Law under the definition you provided, would you agree?

 

[dennishoddy]

I enjoy feeding the trolls and I don't even have to buy a Zoo ticket.

Besides, you rarely give me much opportunity to retort.

Its my duty.

 

[tulsanewb]

This is the part that isnt being understood for some reason. There is a distinction between those within their rights and those outside of them, and both present different problems/solutions.
Anyone advocating for the actions of those under the color of authority like we have witnessed of late, repeatedly and without repercussions, against people exercising their rights is on the wrong side of the argument.

Well stated.

 

[tulsanewb]

On a less argumentative note, I think we can all agree that headlines like this are a welcome sight after the past few days: "Hundreds demonstrate peacefully in embattled Ferguson, Mo."