Trump's America

[Danny Bateman]

On 8/28/2017 at 10:33 AM, BIGREDIOWAN said:

Do the police need MRAP's? Probably not, but we do need armored vehicles for certain situations. Officer down, hostage scenarios, active shooter scenarios, etc. There are several examples where vehicles like this would/were/are helpful i.e. Dallas shooting, San Diego shooting, LA bank robbery, etc. You've already paid for that MRAP to be built and used by the U.S. military. Once that vehicle is decommissioned as a military vehicle and tagged for sale why wouldn't you as a tax payer want your dollar stretched as far as it can be? I know I want my tax payments to go as far as they can. Your local SWAT team might be able to use that vehicle, but can't afford to get one. This program allows them the opportunity to get one of those vehicles, stretch your dollar, and not have to request an armored vehicle which the tax payer in that area has to help pay for. Just because the MRAP is mine resistant doesn't mean that's why the police department, sheriff's office, state patrol, etc. wants that vehicle or needs that vehicle. It's a byproduct of the main feature of that vehicle which is the fact that it is armored and that's what law enforcement is interested in. I can't tell you how wildly unpopular not allowing access to this program was from the law enforcement perspective in today's challenging budgeting environment.

 

The police have to have the ability to handle a variety of different situations. Be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. When we aren't people are HIGHLY critical of us not being prepared for X situation. A few of our local agencies have Hummers. They are not going out and doing traffic stops in these vehicles which is what your average person thinks they are doing with these vehicles which is laughable and ridiculous. These vehicles are used for community events, parades and more than once have rescued folks stranded on the interstate during a blizzard resulting in saving lives. Ultimately these vehicles were looked at for the ability to rescue folks in natural disaster type situations, floods, blizzards, etc. I'd much rather have my local law enforcement have the tools needed to handle a situation and never need them than wish they had something when all hell broke loose. Rather than scrap these vehicles I personally think this is a better option. No one is going out and requesting rocket launchers, mines, etc to the best of my knowledge. Vehicles and rifles are usually the big requests. Why do we need rifles? Again research the LA bank robbery and tell me why we don't need rifles.

 

I think you make a pretty good case for why this could be a good move. Obviously I want our police to be safe while they serve us, and the argument about stretching tax dollars is appealing.

 

My point is that in spite of the good work the majority of our police do, there is still a large segment of the country that has a hard time trusting or feeling safe around the police. The whole reason Obama embarked on his quest to try to reform policing was because of the social unrest exacerbated in Ferguson by militarized police. I don't deal with the realities of doing your job, but I think I understand his reasoning for doing so and generally support moving towards less military equipment in the hands of police, hopefully coinciding with a safer work environment for you where you still feel you have what you need.

My primary concern with regards to this is the example being set by our president at the moment. Sure, he's supporting you in the sense he is giving you back more equipment, but he also told a large gathering of officers a couple weeks back to bang citizen's heads on the cruiser and pardoned a sh#tbag like Arpaio. While the equipment may make it easier to do your job, the messages he's sending with his other moves decidedly are NOT promoting the type of reforms I'd like to see made to our policing. Rather they're tacit approval to go in the opposite direction.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

3 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

 

I think you make a pretty good case for why this could be a good move. Obviously I want our police to be safe while they serve us, and the argument about stretching tax dollars is appealing.

 

My point is that in spite of the good work the majority of our police do, there is still a large segment of the country that has a hard time trusting or feeling safe around the police. The whole reason Obama embarked on his quest to try to reform policing was because of the social unrest exacerbated in Ferguson by militarized police. I don't deal with the realities of doing your job, but I think I understand his reasoning for doing so and generally support moving towards less military equipment in the hands of police, hopefully coinciding with a safer work environment for you where you still feel you have what you need.

My primary concern with regards to this is the example being set by our president at the moment. Sure, he's supporting you in the sense he is giving you back more equipment, but he also told a large gathering of officers a couple weeks back to bang citizen's heads on the cruiser and pardoned a sh#tbag like Arpaio. While the equipment may make it easier to do your job, the messages he's sending with his other moves decidedly are NOT promoting the type of reforms I'd like to see made to our policing. Rather they're tacit approval to go in the opposite direction.

 

I do not personally believe there is a large segment of our society that doesn't trust the police. I believe that a large part of our society trust the police, supports the police and understand that we are trying to do a difficult job under impossible and tough circumstances. I believe a small part of our society is being given the largest piece of the soap box due to a media that continues to drive the narrative against the police. That's not the whole "fake news" stuff either that is being talked about. It's a news source that has tried and done numerous times to stoke the flames of anger, hate, and civil unrest for unknown reasons from my point of view. That statement is not directed at any one group of people, it's directed at all groups of people.  

 

I personally have a tough time hearing the term "militarized police". I understand the appearance and understand how your average citizen might perceive things. This is where it's extremely important to educate in reference to law enforcement and our response to X situations. How we gather intelligence is way different than it used to be. It's extremely in depth and advanced and often that is what is used to determine how we should plan and prepare our response to any given situation. I do not and did not have access to the intelligence from several civil unrest events to determine if the response was correct in those situations or not correct. I'm not saying they were or weren't, I'm just saying that you aren't going to hear about that intelligence most of the time as a citizen. So obviously you would be unaware of that intelligence to help you try and understand our response to a situation. If we didn't plan correctly and respond correctly we would be destroyed in the media and public's eye and it truly is a "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" situation for us.

 

Lastly you speak about limiting the equipment that we are allowed to have access to. Hopefully creating a safer working environment for us to operate in. Again, in today's world we expect way too much of our police. We ask them to be prepared to respond to situations ranging from terrorist events, to mental health crisis, to neighborhood disputes. That's a daunting scale of tasks that is extremely difficult to respond to and be prepared for and we as a society have pushed our police into the position of "society's keeper". That's not a position they want and that's not a position they should be in. If we want our police to move out of some of these areas we are going to have to expand things like mental health care, military response and availability to be prepared for terrorist events, etc. When we request this equipment we are requesting mainly the following equipment, but this list obviously won't encompass all the requests.

 

1. Armored vehicles-for the reasons listed in my earlier post.

2. Rifles-distance is our friend in law enforcement, it levels the playing field with a bad guy with a gun and allows us to use an extremely accurate weapon at a safe distance.

3. Ballistic vests-Our current soft body armor will not defeat a rifle round, these larger and heavier vests will. Most active shooter events involve a rifle or long gun.

4. Ballistic Shields-Protect officers responding to an active shooting situation as well as other critical incidents.

5. Ballistic Helmets-An Orlando Officer was shot in the head responding to the Orlando Night Club shooting. His ballistic helmet, which OPD requested and received via this program, protected his head and took the brunt of this round. Had he not had this helmet he likely would've been added to the lists of victims in this incident.

 

We need to reform our society more so than we need to reform our police. Our police respond to society's needs and have to police accordingly. I don't pretend to think that we do everything perfectly, but to act like society doesn't shoulder a large part of this blame is just plain incorrect.

[Landlord]

5 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

 

The whole reason Obama embarked on his quest to try to reform policing was because of the social unrest exacerbated in Ferguson by militarized police.

 

Let's not forget - the reason for the social unrest in Ferguson was due to the rampant racism at the hands of the police department, not due to the militarization. 

 

I'm no expert on the police force, and I'm also not someone that has a general distaste for police. Most police officers are just regular guys doing the best they can in a mostly thankless and difficult job. Police officers aren't bad. Bad police officers are bad. Ferguson was an example of bad police. There are plenty examples of great police, but they don't make the headlines in the same sort of way.

[knapplc]

Part of me thinks that keeping Trump's dog-and-pony show as far from the relief effort as possible is exactly what needed to happen.

 

But another part of me is turned off by the hypocrisy of Trump tweeting that he saw horrible devastation when he was nowhere near any of it.

 

As in:

 

 

Except:

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Couldn't let Melania's stiletto shoes get wet.

[BigRedBuster]

This is so damn frustrating to me.  You have a group like the Nazis and White supremacists that are absolutely disgusting wastes of oxygen.  Everyone should be able to get behind anyone who opposes these groups.

 

 

But.....then these show up on the other side.  These people do nothing but feed fuel to the fire that Trump was right about violence on both sides.

 

 

[TGHusker]

17 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Thanks for this TG - good to know.  I'm an ACLU gal, but I know the Southern Poverty Group was getting lots of support a few months ago.  I wasn't aware of this.

NM, one of my 'recovery' points from being far right is to remain open to those whose views may be different than mine. Part of that is to stop broad brushing people and organizations.  I'm not always successful but it is a character goal of mine.  As a result I see it more in other organizations and individual statements. Which is why I have a hard time listening to talk radio now because of its constant broad brushing.  I have enjoyed listening to NPR radio for the variety of topics and views expressed.  While I would not join the SPLC or ACLU - I will not deny the good that they accomplish. 

[BigRedBuster]

I know what Trump is expecting.  Everyone to go around the table proclaiming...."President Trump, thank you so much for everything you do and just....being you ....because my life would not be fulfilled without the amazing opportunity to be in the government with you as our dear leader."

 

 

[sho]

Can you challenge a presidential pardon?  Guess we'll find out.

 

Quote

Put simply, the argument is that the president cannot obviate the court’s powers to enforce its orders when the constitutional rights of others is at stake. “The president can’t use the pardon power to immunize lawless officials from consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights,” says one of the lawyers who authored the letter, Ron Fein, legal director of Free Speech for People. Clearly, there is a larger concern here that goes beyond Arpaio. “After repeatedly belittling and undermining judges verbally and on Twitter, now President Trump is escalating his attack on the courts into concrete actions,” says Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy. “His pardon and celebration of Joe Arpaio for ignoring a judicial order is a threat to our democracy and every citizen’s rights, and should not be allowed to stand.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.4ddcdbe40b21

[TGHusker]

29 minutes ago, sho said:

Can you challenge a presidential pardon?  Guess we'll find out.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/08/30/legal-challenge-to-arpaio-pardon-begins/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.4ddcdbe40b21

I hope so.  Trump's disdain for the judicial and thereby the rule of law is reflected in Sheriff Joe who was convicted of his actions which were itself a reflection of his disdain for the rule of law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-arpaio-pardon-displays-trumps-disdain-for-the-rule-of-law/2017/08/28/062b0334-8c2c-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?utm_term=.e7ea9063d242

The president’s authority to bestow pardons is nearly without restraint. But granting clemency for a defendant convicted of contempt of court speaks to the same disdain toward the judicial system that Mr. Trump has displayed in his attacks on “so-called” judges. (Mr. Arpaio has taken a similar approach, decrying his conviction as a “political witch hunt.”) And Mr. Trump’s discussion with Mr. Sessions recalls his suggestion to then-FBI Director James B. Comey to drop the bureau’s investigation of Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.

 

This pardon is not only a mark of Mr. Trump’s inclination to inflame rather than bind up the nation’s wounds. It is also a warning of his lack of respect for the independence of the courts and of law enforcement in a country governed by the rule of law — a worrying characteristic in a president facing an ongoing special counsel investigation. But Mr. Trump should take the outraged response to Mr. Arpaio’s pardon from across the political spectrum as a warning, too: a sign of the resistance he will encounter if he chooses to issue further pardons, particularly in the Russia affair, on the basis of political concerns rather than those of justice.

 

[BigRedBuster]

But...but...but...he's the "Law and Order" President.

[TGHusker]

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

But...but...but...he's the "Law and Order" President.

But....but...but  So was Hitler and his favorite sheriff:  Heinrich Luitpold Himmler 

On Hitler's behalf, Himmler formed the Einsatzgruppen and built extermination camps. As facilitator and overseer of the concentration camps, Himmler directed the killing of some six million Jews, between 200,000 and 500,000 Romani people, and other victims; the total number of civilians killed by the regime is estimated at eleven to fourteen million people. Most of them were Polish and Soviet citizens.

[BigRedBuster]

15 hours ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

 

I do not personally believe there is a large segment of our society that doesn't trust the police. I believe that a large part of our society trust the police, supports the police and understand that we are trying to do a difficult job under impossible and tough circumstances. I believe a small part of our society is being given the largest piece of the soap box due to a media that continues to drive the narrative against the police. That's not the whole "fake news" stuff either that is being talked about. It's a news source that has tried and done numerous times to stoke the flames of anger, hate, and civil unrest for unknown reasons from my point of view. That statement is not directed at any one group of people, it's directed at all groups of people.  

 

I personally have a tough time hearing the term "militarized police". I understand the appearance and understand how your average citizen might perceive things. This is where it's extremely important to educate in reference to law enforcement and our response to X situations. How we gather intelligence is way different than it used to be. It's extremely in depth and advanced and often that is what is used to determine how we should plan and prepare our response to any given situation. I do not and did not have access to the intelligence from several civil unrest events to determine if the response was correct in those situations or not correct. I'm not saying they were or weren't, I'm just saying that you aren't going to hear about that intelligence most of the time as a citizen. So obviously you would be unaware of that intelligence to help you try and understand our response to a situation. If we didn't plan correctly and respond correctly we would be destroyed in the media and public's eye and it truly is a "dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" situation for us.

 

Lastly you speak about limiting the equipment that we are allowed to have access to. Hopefully creating a safer working environment for us to operate in. Again, in today's world we expect way too much of our police. We ask them to be prepared to respond to situations ranging from terrorist events, to mental health crisis, to neighborhood disputes. That's a daunting scale of tasks that is extremely difficult to respond to and be prepared for and we as a society have pushed our police into the position of "society's keeper". That's not a position they want and that's not a position they should be in. If we want our police to move out of some of these areas we are going to have to expand things like mental health care, military response and availability to be prepared for terrorist events, etc. When we request this equipment we are requesting mainly the following equipment, but this list obviously won't encompass all the requests.

 

1. Armored vehicles-for the reasons listed in my earlier post.

2. Rifles-distance is our friend in law enforcement, it levels the playing field with a bad guy with a gun and allows us to use an extremely accurate weapon at a safe distance.

3. Ballistic vests-Our current soft body armor will not defeat a rifle round, these larger and heavier vests will. Most active shooter events involve a rifle or long gun.

4. Ballistic Shields-Protect officers responding to an active shooting situation as well as other critical incidents.

5. Ballistic Helmets-An Orlando Officer was shot in the head responding to the Orlando Night Club shooting. His ballistic helmet, which OPD requested and received via this program, protected his head and took the brunt of this round. Had he not had this helmet he likely would've been added to the lists of victims in this incident.

 

We need to reform our society more so than we need to reform our police. Our police respond to society's needs and have to police accordingly. I don't pretend to think that we do everything perfectly, but to act like society doesn't shoulder a large part of this blame is just plain incorrect.

 

The problem is not that the police are given old military equipment.  In some situations, they need that.  Problem is, it could be any police department in the US and you can't possibly know which ones are going to need it.

 

The problem is in management and training.  

 

Our little town police department went through something very similar a few years ago where we had bad management and guys right out of the academy under the Chief.  It was a disaster in many ways.  These guys were all gung ho and going to save the world....meanwhile, you have a police officer giving a kid a speeding ticket on a bicycle....SERIOUSLY!!!!

 

The problem is not the equipment.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

18 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

The problem is not that the police are given old military equipment.  In some situations, they need that.  Problem is, it could be any police department in the US and you can't possibly know which ones are going to need it.

 

The problem is in management and training.  

 

Our little town police department went through something very similar a few years ago where we had bad management and guys right out of the academy under the Chief.  It was a disaster in many ways.  These guys were all gung ho and going to save the world....meanwhile, you have a police officer giving a kid a speeding ticket on a bicycle....SERIOUSLY!!!!

 

The problem is not the equipment.

And your experience with your small town police department isn't the reality in law enforcement across America so you can't take that experience and put that all on the rest of us. Classifying us all that way really isn't appropriate.

[Moiraine]

7 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

And your experience with your small town police department isn't the reality in law enforcement across America so you can't take that experience and put that all on the rest of us. Classifying us all that way really isn't appropriate.

 

 

I don't think that's what he's doing. He's saying there are many police departments who don't need the equipment and he personally knows of at least 1 that shouldn't have it. 

 

He's not generalizing to say that none need it or that none are capable of handling it. He's saying not all should get it.

 

He's basically doing the opposite of generalizing, by saying some police departments shouldn't get it. Instead of saying all should get it regardless of need or capibility of using it responsibly.