Author Topic: mass shooting and police militarization  (Read 17705 times)

AKIRA

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
mass shooting and police militarization
« on: June 16, 2016, 01:02:55 AM »
There is an aspect of the Orlando shootings that has been discussed here before, and may warrant another look.  That would be the subject of the “militarization” of the local police forces.  I use quotes because I don’t fully agree with that word describing LEOs adapting to modern circumstances of the 2nd Amendment, but I do recognize that is the view of many here.

As the timelines of the shootings are developed, it is becoming plain to see that the street patrolmen who first responded could only address the problem to a point.  The construction of the building being concrete and otherwise secure, the fatal funnel that the floor plan became and the arms/methods used by the killer worked against conventional methods.   After it became a hostage situation, it was realized that SWAT, armored vehicles, explosives and higher powered weapons had to be utilized, especially when the killer began shooting again.

In short, if not for the Bearcat armored vehicle and heavily armed/armored police, the already astonishing body count would have been higher still.

I fully understand that, at the very least, the image of the militarized cop is disconcerting, but we live in a day where technology is fine tuning firearms in such a way as to be insanely effective against an otherwise unsuspecting target.

There are calls for banning assault rifles in an effort to slow mass shootings, but that could result in the same kind of problems that the War of Drugs has brought.  Would a War on Assault Rifles be any less violent than the War on Drugs?  Some I read wish rifles to be confiscated by the government.  Would it take a more militarized police to be capable of that?

I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted in the current way… and if the 2nd Amendment were severely restricted, police militarization would continue as it would be needed to enforce the necessary changes.   

This does not reflect my hope for the future, but is rather a recognition of the rabbit hole the county is going down, whether we choose to see it or not.

The_Choose_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 619
  • We Are Norfolk Southern
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2016, 07:51:53 AM »
There is an aspect of the Orlando shootings that has been discussed here before, and may warrant another look.  That would be the subject of the “militarization” of the local police forces.  I use quotes because I don’t fully agree with that word describing LEOs adapting to modern circumstances of the 2nd Amendment, but I do recognize that is the view of many here.

As the timelines of the shootings are developed, it is becoming plain to see that the street patrolmen who first responded could only address the problem to a point.  The construction of the building being concrete and otherwise secure, the fatal funnel that the floor plan became and the arms/methods used by the killer worked against conventional methods.   After it became a hostage situation, it was realized that SWAT, armored vehicles, explosives and higher powered weapons had to be utilized, especially when the killer began shooting again.

In short, if not for the Bearcat armored vehicle and heavily armed/armored police, the already astonishing body count would have been higher still.

I fully understand that, at the very least, the image of the militarized cop is disconcerting, but we live in a day where technology is fine tuning firearms in such a way as to be insanely effective against an otherwise unsuspecting target.

There are calls for banning assault rifles in an effort to slow mass shootings, but that could result in the same kind of problems that the War of Drugs has brought.  Would a War on Assault Rifles be any less violent than the War on Drugs?  Some I read wish rifles to be confiscated by the government.  Would it take a more militarized police to be capable of that?

I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted in the current way… and if the 2nd Amendment were severely restricted, police militarization would continue as it would be needed to enforce the necessary changes.   

This does not reflect my hope for the future, but is rather a recognition of the rabbit hole the county is going down, whether we choose to see it or not.
"I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms" NO! NO! NO! If this happens then Cops should be called the National Guard! I would rather it stay the way it is then become a POLICE STATE.
One of many unsung internet heroes who are almost entirely misunderstood. Contrary to popular belief, many trolls are actually quite intelligent. Their habitual attacks on forums is usually a result of their awareness of the pretentiousness and excessive self-importance of many forum enthusiasts.

coredumped

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1969
  • Huge Member
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2016, 10:08:45 AM »
This does not reflect my hope for the future, but is rather a recognition of the rabbit hole the county is going down, whether we choose to see it or not.
"I believe that it is enviable that police will have to continue down the militarized road with armored vehicles and arms" NO! NO! NO! If this happens then Cops should be called the National Guard! I would rather it stay the way it is then become a POLICE STATE.

I agree, completely!

Further you could argue that if the area wasn't designated a gun free zone as most of these shootings are, people could actually defend themselves.

And yes, 49 people dying is an absolute tragedy, but let's not forget that more people are killed by police every month, 96 in May alone. Yes, some justified, but not all.
http://killedbypolice.net/


Jags season ticket holder.

finehoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4007
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2016, 10:59:05 AM »
Further you could argue that if the area wasn't designated a gun free zone as most of these shootings are, people could actually defend themselves.

You mean like this?


Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
    • Facebook
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2016, 11:10:36 AM »
Further you could argue that if the area wasn't designated a gun free zone as most of these shootings are, people could actually defend themselves.

You mean like this?



+1000
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

coredumped

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1969
  • Huge Member
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2016, 11:29:21 AM »
Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this, Despite it just happening:

Those poor people in the club had no chance.

Jags season ticket holder.

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
    • Facebook
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2016, 11:33:38 AM »
Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this, Despite it just happening:

Those poor people in the club had no chance.

I can't vouch for what liberals do or don't get, but I know I feel a lot safer knowing I am not surrounded by armed idiots.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

finehoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4007
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2016, 11:46:05 AM »
Well, what did we have this time, in the gun free zone? Give people a fighting chance! I don't understand why Liberals don't get this,

And I don't understand why you think that everyone carrying a gun wild west style will result in less violence.

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
    • Facebook
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2016, 01:57:29 PM »
It wasn't a 'gun free zone' anyway - there was an armed police officer there who exchanged fire with the shooter. A trained, armed police officer.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

coredumped

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1969
  • Huge Member
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2016, 02:17:39 PM »
And I don't understand why you think that everyone carrying a gun wild west style will result in less violence.
Well, not everyone who CAN carry a gun would, it would be a personal preference. And why do I think it would work? Because it does (see video below):
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/HZudm8axR_A" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/HZudm8axR_A</a>
To further my point, just have a look at Chicago...

It wasn't a 'gun free zone' anyway - there was an armed police officer there who exchanged fire with the shooter. A trained, armed police officer.

And it absolutely WAS gun free zone. Citizens are not allowed to have guns in bars in the state of Florida. By your logic, there are no gun free zones in America, since the police are allowed to have guns virtually everywhere.
Yes, there was an off-duty cop there with a gun, but backup took some time to arrive. In the meantime, people were lining up to die. I sure would have liked to defend myself if I was in that situation. And I bet each and every one of the deceased would have liked to have a gun.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Jags season ticket holder.

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
    • Facebook
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2016, 02:20:25 PM »
And I don't understand why you think that everyone carrying a gun wild west style will result in less violence.
Well, not everyone who CAN carry a gun would, it would be a personal preference. And why do I think it would work? Because it does (see video below):
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/HZudm8axR_A" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/HZudm8axR_A</a>
To further my point, just have a look at Chicago...

It wasn't a 'gun free zone' anyway - there was an armed police officer there who exchanged fire with the shooter. A trained, armed police officer.

And it absolutely WAS gun free zone. Citizens are not allowed to have guns in bars in the state of Florida. By your logic, there are no gun free zones in America, since the police are allowed to have guns virtually everywhere.
Yes, there was an off-duty cop there with a gun, but backup took some time to arrive. In the meantime, people were lining up to die. I sure would have liked to defend myself if I was in that situation. And I bet each and every one of the deceased would have liked to have a gun.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

My point is that the 'zone' was clearly not gun-free, as there was a trained, armed man who exchanged gunfire with the gunman and still wasn't able to stop him.

And I think it's in very poor taste for you to project your feelings onto the victims. You want to use this slaughter to further your pro-gun agenda, then fine. But don't put words in the mouths of the murdered.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
    • Facebook
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2016, 02:24:52 PM »
Oh.. and remember the Charlie Hebdo shootings? There were armed bodyguards there who were killed by the shooters.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

coredumped

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1969
  • Huge Member
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2016, 03:13:41 PM »
And I think it's in very poor taste for you to project your feelings onto the victims. You want to use this slaughter to further your pro-gun agenda, then fine. But don't put words in the mouths of the murdered.

I don't have a pro gun agenda, but I believe that people have a right to defend themselves, and in this case they weren't because it was a gun free zone. I'm not sure why anyone would think any different.

But I give up. You guys are all correct. Let's ban guns, that's clearly the only answer. In fact, let's make murder illegal, then this wouldn't happen at all! Man, I wish I thought of that. Those criminals and terrorist will never think to break the law.

I'm moving to the peaceful utopia that is Chicago....
Jags season ticket holder.

Adam White

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3810
    • Facebook
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2016, 03:17:00 PM »
And I think it's in very poor taste for you to project your feelings onto the victims. You want to use this slaughter to further your pro-gun agenda, then fine. But don't put words in the mouths of the murdered.

I don't have a pro gun agenda, but I believe that people have a right to defend themselves, and in this case they weren't because it was a gun free zone. I'm not sure why anyone would think any different.

But I give up. You guys are all correct. Let's ban guns, that's clearly the only answer. In fact, let's make murder illegal, then this wouldn't happen at all! Man, I wish I thought of that. Those criminals and terrorist will never think to break the law.

I'm moving to the peaceful utopia that is Chicago....

Whatever, man. I wasn't saying that. I just think your comment was particularly crass.
“If you're going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly.”

coredumped

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1969
  • Huge Member
Re: mass shooting and police militarization
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2016, 03:26:29 PM »
Whatever, man. I wasn't saying that. I just think your comment was particularly crass.

Well I didn't think I was, nor do I mean to be, but really, but it's no less compassionate than "let's ban guns" that the left is touting. This forum (ok, maybe not this thread) usually has a better conversation than most of the internet, and I like to think I contribute to that, even if I was sarcastic at the end there ;)

I'm not saying we should allow people to carry guns because I'm the CEO of smith and wesson, I'm saying it because I believe it would help. I don't want to see innocent people die. Ever. There's a reason why most of these idiots go after gun free zones.

Just like you believe banning guns would save lives. We obviously disagree, but don't think that I'm pushing an agenda or anything like that. I just want people to defend themselves, because clearly, they could not in this case. And what he did was already illegal.

Basically, you have the left trying to ban guns (for citizens, not their security guards, police, etc) and the right trying to ban a whole religious group of people. It's insane.

There is no 100% solution, but I don't think banning people or things is a solution at all. It's as effective as the war on drugs.
Jags season ticket holder.