Do the police think that they are gods?

[Zalatix]

Or the guardians of gods?

I think they see themselves as such.

In the past I have laughed at news of entire court systems losing funding and people got angry because of the general fear that without the cops and the court systems, things will get ugly for normal American citizens.

In light of this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002705316
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002706367

and this (warning: quite horrible)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/kelly-thomas-video-homeless-man-beaten-as-he-cried-for-help-1.html

and a thousand other cases that have popped up in just the last few months alone, a rational person must ask: are we not headed for much worse if we stay our current course?

What is much worse?

Well, let's start with assuming the cops and courts go away. Worst case scenario: people are mugging and killing each other for resources, with no cops to watch over us.

Now let's look at the reality: the cops routinely don't even bother to respond to thefts. In Oakland, recently, they declined to deal with a hostile intruder in a man's house and the man got killed as a result - they were too busy handling an Occupy protest. The police routinely shoot unarmed people who aren't aggressive, they plant false evidence on people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_evidence#Cases_of_false_evidence), and other transgressions that often go unpunished by the court system. (See: Rodney King.) When the citizenry really start fighting back, we get COINTELPRO and Ruby Ridge. (Really, who here is psycho enough to argue that Vicky Weaver deserved to be shot dead when she was holding a BABY in her arms?)

We have a massive, growing and increasingly privatized prison-industrial complex with arguably the largest prison population in the world outside of China, and an increasingly large number of prisoners doing cheap slave labor that is increasingly replacing paid industrial labor by free people.

We have the NDAA with the indefinite detention clause, a clause which has been denied by many but now finally recognized AND blocked by a Federal judge. We have CERTAINLY not seen the end of this. You can imagine the consequences.

Our government is now involved in the increasing use of EXTRAJUDICIAL aka summary executions of not only pesky evil foreigners, but also American citizens. All based on accusations of terrorism that we will never see any proof of. And we're being told to just drink the purple kool-aid and trust the Government that this was necessary. Oh but they'll NEVER use drones to carry out a summary execution on a U.S. citizen on American soil. Trust them, they're the Government!

We also have the National Security Agency now openly flaunting their use of a global surveillance system which, formerly called ECHELON, was flatly denied as a conspiracy theory decades ago. Think I'm wrong? Then read this. What the NSA used to deny as a conspiracy theory, they all but brag about now. Why? Because the evil terrorists are out to get us and Big Brother is here FOR OUR SAFETY!!!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where all this is leading to: a world where the police are the raiders, terrorists and thugs that we are scared would plague us if they never existed. You just have to spend a day visiting the prison-industrial complex to see the smelly guts of the world of tomorrow for a great number of Americans: for them, it's here today. For you, it could be here tomorrow morning, literally, if you do so much as catch a police officer on film.

And you cannot hate these thugs because to hate them is to be a psychotic demon. Because, despite all of what they do to society, they are gods, or the guardians of the gods. They are part of the new religion of America: the cult of the Blue servants of Robber Baron Capitalism.

What should we do about this? We need to eliminate their sources of funding. We need to replace America's psychopath-dominated police force with a new system of law enforcement. One that, for instance, doesn't come equipped for an all-out war against the American people:

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

Most importantly, when you are considering the hellish possibility of a world without the police gangs that we have now, consider this also: what kind of world are we creating when we give the police gangs of today A MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF EXTREME ARMORED FORCE?

We need to re-think the concept of law enforcement. Quickly.

[niyad]

1. you might want to read norm stamper's article in the Nation, or watch his

interview on DN

http://www.thenation.com/article/164501/paramilitary-policing-seattle-occupy-wall-street

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/17/paramilitary_policing_of_occupy_wall_street

stamper was seattle chief of police during the "battle for seattle" and what he has to say about policing today is chilling, to say the least.

[Zalatix]

4. Wow. Sad, but not surprising.

I like this part in particular:

There will always be situations—an armed and barricaded suspect, a man with a knife to his wife’s throat, a school-shooting rampage—that require disciplined, military-like operations. But most of what police are called upon to do, day in and day out, requires patience, diplomacy and interpersonal skills. I’m convinced it is possible to create a smart organizational alternative to the paramilitary bureaucracy that is American policing. But that will not happen unless, even as we cull “bad apples” from our police forces, we recognize that the barrel itself is rotten.

There is part of the solution.

[sabrina 1]

73. It is chilling. I have read his writings on policing and give him credit for

speaking out.

[DiverDave]

85. Stamper cites an article from the cato institute

Radley Balko’s excellent 2006 report Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america

It's a long piece and I downloaded it.
His piece is an eye opener.

[DiverDave]

93. A troubling passage

Speaking about a trip to a recent NTOA (National Tactical Officers Association) convention, McNamara said:
“Officers at the conference were wearing these very disturbing shirts
On the front, there were pictures of SWAT officers dressed in dark
Uniforms, wearing helmets and holding sub-machine guns.
Below was written: “We don’t do drive-by shootings”
On the back was a picture of a demolished house. Below
Was written “We stop”

[niyad]

108. that is truly disturbing

[JFN1]

3. It is far past time we institute federally mandated police standards

which include psychological testing, Constitutional education backed up by testing to ensure a basic understanding of their relationship to the citizenry, and job performance standards for departments and individuals.

[Zalatix]

5. That's part of the solution.

The other part is to re-think the concept of giving the police the power to use such ludicrously powerful weapons against the people.

It's only going to get worse.

[Poll_Blind]

7. +1 nt

PB

[Downwinder]

6. Government took over the Numbers Racket and called it the Lottery,

took over the Extortion and Protection Rackets and called it Police.

[ZM90]

8. Cue "Imperial March Theme".

[hifiguy]

9. The militarized goons that call themselves cops

in this country should be busted to sweeping streets. They are an occupying army denying the citizenry their rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. All police unions should be disbanded yesterday. Their only purpose is to prevent brutal assholes from receiving the punishment they deserve.

Fuk tha police!!

[Zalatix]

13. Actually the politicians and Plutocrats who armed and metaphorically roided up these cops

are the ones who should be busted to sweeping the streets.

The cops aren't as culpable as the system itself. Police unions can be useful if their power is severely pared down and the watchmen are made to understand that the citizens are THEIR watchmen. The police must be made to fear the people and to always work for their trust, and never to take it for granted.

I'm not for eliminating ALL law enforcement. I'm for replacing the current underlying system with something less corrupt. As Norm Stamper said:

But that will not happen unless, even as we cull “bad apples” from our police forces, we recognize that the barrel itself is rotten.

[daaron]

29. You have a point about police unions.

They're more of a fraternal order - related to the Freemasons, in fact - than what we lefties think of as a union. Disband them and let them reform as a traditional union.

[white_wolf]

10. They are the lapdogs of an increasingly brutal ruling class.

The only people they "protect and serve" is the 1% They are useful idiots of the powerful and they will be stabbed in the back the moment it becomes profitable for the ruling class to do so.

[TBF]

68. Unfortunately - true.

Some seem to be content following orders and I think could side with the people if pushed far enough, but there are also far too many authoritarian types who seem to take pleasure in hurting others. Very sad state of affairs.

[pinto]

11. David Icke?

OTT, hyper conspiratorial fear mongering. "False flag" acts of terrorism to establish a one world government? Come on. There's a need to counter law enforcement excesses, but this ain't it.

Oh, and where are the pics from?

[Zalatix]

15. My points are all documented. There is no conspiratorial fear mongering there at all. Just facts.

The pics came from simple Google searches.

[jberryhill]

16. ...and Ruby Ridge

How dare the government attempt to serve a warrant on a heavily armed white supremacist dealing in automatic weapons.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

17. Yeah, why throw that in?

That idiot put his family in the line of fire got a few them killed.

[Upton]

46. Weaver's son was shot in the back..

his wife while she stood in a doorway holding their 10 month old infant. I don't care what his views were, that kind of abuse should not be tolerated or defended in this country..

[Zalatix]

89. The sins of the father MUST be visited upon his family! Go USA!!!

I'm being facetious, just so ya know.

[Zalatix]

86. Ah, so that's why Randy Weaver's wife deserved to die while holding a baby in her arms.

Any argument that justifies someone shooting an unarmed woman standing around with a baby in her arms* is an argument that needs re-thinking.

* she wasn't not holding a bomb detonator, it wasn't a hostage situation, her death didn't prevent aliens from bombing Earth, none of that applied here.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

87. He had months to get his family out of harms way.

Instead he brought them right in the middle of it and a cop got shot. And still he wouldn't surrender. Even right wing survivalists say he's an idiot. I'm not even going to discuss this stupid subject.

[Zalatix]

88. That doesn't excuse a law enforcement agent shooting an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms.

You may not want to discuss this subject but the facts remain: there was no reason to shoot that woman. Period.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

90. All the feds knew is they were being shot at by Neo-Nazi maniacs.

I'm this close to locking you in my cuckoo cellar.

[Zalatix]

91. And I've already locked you in my cuckoo cellar. Again, there was NO REASON

to shoot a woman with a baby in her arms.

No reason to shoot an unarmed person.
No reason to shoot someone holding a KID in their arms.

Period.

[randome]

92. You weren't there. You don't know.

Have you ever been in a firefight? I mean with live ammo, not a paintball tournament.

You weren't there. You don't know.

[Zalatix]

94. Firefight or no, there's NO REASON to shoot a woman with a baby in her arms.

"Have you ever been in a firefight?" - invalid and pointless argument.

You do not open fire on a woman with a kid in her arms. PERIOD.

Randy Weaver was charged with murder and was acquitted. He was only convicted of one count: a failure to appear in court. The Government paid Weaver to avoid a civil lawsuit.

In short: Randy Weaver was not guilty of the things that were used to justify that raid. He shot back at the officers and was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. Do you dispute this?

[randome]

95. Not defending anyone. It was a fuck-up from the start.

But I DO think that if you haven't been in a firefight, you don't know what it's like to be shot at. I don't know, either.

[Zalatix]

97. Perhaps that's why the jury was so sympathetic to Randy Weaver.

He fought back in the middle of a firefight and that's why he was found not guilty.

You seem to not care at all about the unarmed woman with the kid in her arms. You know, I'm just going to keep bringing her up. There's no excuse for shooting her. A "Firefight" is no excuse for killing her.

[randome]

98. Where did I say I didn't care?

The whole operation was fucked up. And you seem to think you KNOW who shot first. I don't. I wasn't there. I do know that Weaver was hanging out with White Supremacists and was heavily armed.

That doesn't mean I'm excusing a damned thing.

You just want to be angry all the time. That's why you post ludicrous OPs like 'The police think they are gods.'

Most police don't think like that, from what I've seen and experienced. Some, admittedly, do.

[Zalatix]

99. Gotcha, your argument contained sympathy for the mother and the kid she was holding.

I know you showed some consideration in there for her, I just need to use my secret decoder to find where.

Seriously, though, your excuse has consistently been "well the poor put upon agent who shot an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms was in a firefight!" Yeah, I'm sure she was firing laser beams at him with her eyes, and as you said I really can't deny that because I wasn't there.

And yeah, I am angry. Deal with it. I am one of many. Eventually we will force some drastic changes to the system of law enforcement. Because we are pissed. My OP is not ludicrous - your argument is.

Get used to this anger, it's growing, and it won't stop growing until the police stop being brutal psychopaths with a God complex.

[Meiko]

19. Actually

It was sawed off shotguns, you might be thinking of Waco.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

36. He was charged with having a sawed off shotgun

but he was also a white supremacist. The feds wanted him to snitch on the white supremacists which he refused to do. It all went bad from there.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

143. David Icke also believes "reptilian beings" control the world

Seriously.....I don't want to embarrass the OP, but......uh, well, yeah I do......

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. Please note this video of a man being threatened and arrested for attempting to file a complaint

against police.

[ryan_cats]

96. Disturbing video

That is one Disturbing video. Do you know what eventually happened?

[Fire Walk With Me]

106. All I know is what we can see there. Perhaps if you backtrack to the youtube page

there might be more information.

[Fire Walk With Me]

14. And don't miss this goldmine of examples of undercover cops caught causing trouble:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002688219

[DeSwiss]

18. K&R

Chaos est requiritur vela descendere......

[treestar]

20. You are broad brushing an entire group of people

There are bad examples in every profession. We have to have police.

[Zalatix]

21. The cops will do exactly what they're ordered to do.

If they're told to put down a protest, they will. No questions asked.

[treestar]

22. "ordered to do" by who? The community they serve

They do not "put down a protest." They arrest people who violate the law. Merely because people are protesting does not put them above the law.

[Fumesucker]

24. ...

[randome]

25. The exception that proves the point.

Wasn't this idiot fired for doing this? He was not acting on anyone's 'orders'.

[Fumesucker]

27. Just the fact that he felt comfortable doing it is an indictment of our police forces..

Notice that none of the protesters he sprayed have been found guilty of anything..

ETA: Not to mention that none of the officers involved felt the need to interfere or speak up in any way, they were all fine with what happened.

[treestar]

118. So what do you recommend be done?

[treestar]

31. But that's not what happened in every single case

Again, you are using that to broad brush the entire police force. The OP seems to make the assertion that the police are always bad. And there are protestors who violate the law - they aren't always right either.

[Fumesucker]

33. When those who are sworn and tasked to uphold the law deliberately break it..

It is a more serious matter than when an average person breaks the law..

Agree or disagree?

The way I see it, just the fact that this law enforcement officer felt comfortable doing that in front of hundreds of cameras is an indictment of our law enforcement community.

None of the protesters he sprayed have been convicted of anything to do with the incident and none of the other police involved moved in any way to stop him or even spoke up..

What that officer did should have been so far beyond the pale that his fellow officers would physically restrain him from doing so, it was certainly no secret what he intended to do.

[randome]

37. No one is arguing the points you make about the Berkley incident.

That has nothing to do with the thousands of courageous things police do EVERY DAY. Finding kidnapped children. Getting into the middle of domestic disputes. Solving murders.

You know, the kind of details that aren't very camera-ready.

To make the implication that all police in all cities across the country are tools of the rich is crazy.

[Fumesucker]

41. I was responding to treestar's words..

They do not "put down a protest." They arrest people who violate the law.

I think "putting down the protest" was exactly the aim of the police officer in the photo, evidently you disagree.

[randome]

42. He wasn't 'putting down anything'.

He was being an asshole. No argument there.

[Fumesucker]

43. Was it a legal act, spraying those students?

[treestar]

121. No, and he would answer for it

You're creating a straw man.

[Fumesucker]

128. It wasn't a legal act yet many police officers watched it done and never lifted a finger..

A whole group of police officers watched a serious crime committed and yet they didn't lift a finger before, they didn't lift a finger during and they didn't lift a finger afterwards..

[treestar]

130. Judge that when you are a police officer in that situation

In fact, I doubt you've entertained the idea of listening to their side of the story.

And why should that group be used to judge all of the cops in the country?

[Fumesucker]

133. A police officer watching a serious crime being committed?

Why should it be a problem for a police officer to interrupt a crime in progress right in front of him with hundreds of cameras watching?

[treestar]

120. Like it or not, there are laws

Protestors are not immune from the law due to protesting. There is a danger of disturbing the peace and someone getting hurt. How do you know what those cops intended? You have no idea.

[Fumesucker]

129. There is no evidence that the protesters in the Davis case were breaking the law..

And plenty of evidence that the officer who pepper sprayed them broke the law.

[treestar]

131. How do you know?

I think you are just assuming that because a person is a protestor, there is no way they can do something wrong. Is there such a thing as a justifiable arrest of a protestor?

[Fumesucker]

134. I was speaking of one specific case, one where the morality is clear..

And pointing out what happened in that specific case.. A police officer performed a serious illegal act of assault and battery with chemical weapons while being watched by other officers and none of them so much as uttered a word of demurral.

The documentation of the incident in question is ironclad, it happened and everyone knows it.

My thesis is that it would happen much the same in any other American police department, you evidently think this particular group of cops was somehow different from the usual US cops somehow and that in most other departments an officer or officers would stop the illegal use of a chemical weapon.

Of course protesters can break the law, where did I ever say otherwise? What protesters may or may not do has no bearing at all on police breaking the law or not, two separate issues and I fail to understand why you are trying to conflate them.

[treestar]

119. Then the fact any teacher ever sexually molested a student

Indicts the entire educational community.

The fact any doctor commits malpractice indicts the entire medical community.

Humanity is not perfect, and this is a fact you have, and you can't go through life being entirely negative about every single other job (and yours is indicted, as there is likely someone in your job type who has done wrong).

[Fumesucker]

127. Do teachers molest students in front of hundreds of cameras?

Would other teachers stand around and watch a teacher molest a student in public?

Does the rest of the educational community try to cover it up and/or excuse it when teachers molest students?

[treestar]

132. What difference does the camera make?

A crime is a crime.

Didn't we have the entire Penn State thing here and blame the other administrators?

Yes, there likely are teachers who knew other teachers did things and did nothing.

I'm sure you would condemn priests and the pope who let other priests do things without reporting to them.

And BTW to whom would those things be reported? Were you one saying Joe Paterno should have called police?

[Fumesucker]

135. Deniability, that's the point of the camera..

There is no deniability in front of hundreds of cameras.

If you honestly think a group of teachers would stand around and watch a blatant assault by another teacher on a student while the entire world is watching perhaps you have an issue with teachers.

[Zalatix]

30. Wow. You probably believe that "police brutality" was a word invented by Oliver Stone.

And the "community" directs the police? Wrong. Mayor Bloomberg controls the NYPD, not the community.

[treestar]

122. Mayor Bloomberg was elected by the people!

And he is not the police chief!

No, I think there is police brutality. I am arguing against the absurdity that the police are evil just because there is occasional brutality.

There are other countries that are far worse.

[Zalatix]

137. And arguments like that are how countries get far worse.

Plenty of politicians elected by the people go wrong, too.

[FSogol]

48. The op is also blurring police and Federal agents to make their points.

The average police officer in this nation? He never pulls his gun or fires a taser.

[treestar]

114. True. I believe there are reports to file if you even fire a gun

in the line of duty. Most cops have nothing to do - that's where they get the reputation for hanging out in donut shops. The big stuff makes the news, so to broad brush the entire profession based on those incidents is just wrong.

[Logical]

49. I am SO FUCKING SICK of that argument to defend police! You are clueless...

Police ABUSE their powers. ALL THE TIME.

They are not held accountable for their actions. They protect other cops!

They can lie and commit crimes with no punishment.

THEIR FUCKING JOB is to not be abusive assholes. Why give them credit for that?

EVERY cop, who has been a cop for more than 5 years, has abused their power at some point. Arrested someone for no reason, that charges were later dropped.

Jesus, gullible much?

[randome]

50. 'Every cop...' ?

Huh? I guess you have a link to support that.

[Logical]

52. Well, I have not talked to a cop that didn't admit it. Maybe 100 of them in my lifetime of asking..

They have admitted arresting someone for 'disorderly conduct' and later dropped the charges. They admit they had no grounds to charge them. But this happens ALL THE TIME. No downside to the cops.

People like you see the cops like they are on TV. Not like they are in real life. That is why people like you, on jury's lets cops off ALL THE TIME. That is why the cops that BEAT Rodeny King got off. Because of people like you!

[randome]

53. Dropping charges does not mean someone did not deserve to be arrested.

Sometimes it's a good idea to get someone who is behaving dangerously off the street. But if the consensus is that the person has 'learned a lesson' or has an otherwise clean record or whatever, charges are dropped.

Of course abuses happen. But of course civilians murder and rape and kidnap 'all the time', according to your logic.

[Logical]

55. No it is not good reason. It is actually False Arrest 90% of the time. Are you gullible....

The prosecution drops the charges because they have no case. Thus False Arrest.

Your "civilians murder and rape' analogy is a joke.

Cops have power that opens them up for abuse. Egos, etc.

And people like you with the Hill Street Blues image of Cops defend them.

[randome]

59. I'm not defending ANYONE who abuses another person.

But I am pointing out that it isn't fair to say that 'all' cops behave the same way any more than it is to say that all 'non-cops' behave the same.

For every abusive incident that gets posted here, there are a thousand other incidents that merit praise and are never known to us. Police do good jobs. Police also abuse their authority.

[Logical]

63. LOL, that argument is like saying.....

The Firemen are heros except when they steal property from home owners or beat up home owners.

How often does that happen? Sure you will google it and find a few stories. But there are WHOLE WEB SITES dedicated to police abuse.

Why is it Cops need to abuse people?

[Zalatix]

100. Sorry, he's too busy defending cops who shoot unarmed women with babies in their arms

under the auspices of "But the poor put upon snipers were in a firefight!!!"

[treestar]

126. No one argued any such thing

That was just making something up.

[Zalatix]

138. Not made up at all, it was said upthread.

[treestar]

125. So why don't you distrust firemen then?

There are whole web sites dedicated to all sorts of things. That legitimizes nothing. Anyone can start a website.

[Logical]

139. Wow, you need to do way more research! n-t

[treestar]

124. We all have "power" to kill or harm others

We don't all control it and that is why we have a criminal justice system!

Someone chosen for the police force was at least vetted. Yet any stranger in the street could harm or rob or kill you. Merely because such things are depicted on TV does not mean they don't happen in reality.

What about Trayvon Martin - it wasn't a cop there, was it? What about every victim of Ted Bundy or the like? They'd have been happy to have run into a cop instead.

[treestar]

123. Yeah right every cop you ever talked to admitted that

Not believable. Why would they waste their time and put themselves at risk. Cops I've talked to mention the fact that any contact could be the one who pulls out a gun and shoots them. In my community recently, a cop was killed with a knife by someone he ran into!

[Logical]

140. It is not that dangerous of a job! Read some stats befor you...

Start posting! Most cops di in car accidents! Not armed confrontations! You really have very little to defend them!

[treestar]

115. I am so sick of your broad brushing cops

What other groups do you hate? What proof do you have about what 800000 people do in their jobs all the time?

Name a country where the police are better.

[Logical]

141. I hate any group that legally abuse people! So should you!

[coalition_unwilling]

65. Have you had any acquaintance with the 'Ramparts Scandal' in

Los Angeles? You may re-think your argument that we simply "have to have police" after you familiarize yourself with its broad outlines. N.B. Most of the story got brushed under the rug, but even the details that came to light paint the LAPD Ramparts Division as little better than the gangs it was supposedly protecting the people from.

[treestar]

116. We don't need police?

What would happen then? Nirvana?

No, we'd be policed by George Zimmermans!

Insane. The LAPD has had its problems - but that is one big city police force!

What about cops that get killed in the line of duty? Are you going to say they deserve it? Just what kind of world do you propose?

[coalition_unwilling]

136. OK, I have no choice but to put you on Ignore for insinuating that

I might advocate that anyone be killed by violence.

I hope you have a good life and find some measure of peace and happiness down the line.

[DeSwiss]

66. YOU may have to have them.....

...but not me.

[treestar]

117. Even libertarians don't make that argument

So you have a gun? I'll take the police rather than you. You'd do a better job? No, you'd just shoot at anyone. The cops are at least trained.

[Logical]

111. Lol, that old argument is done! The police should be much better!!!

[randome]

23. "...a thousand other cases..."

Your hyperbole is precisely why these type of posts are derided. You pick a dozen incidents out of thousands DAILY and attempt to paint all law enforcement as agents of the devil.

I suppose arresting drunk drivers every day and responding to domestic abuse situations, having to rescue kidnapped children, etc. are all part of your wide-ranging conspiracy to serve our corporate overlords.

[jberryhill]

57. But criticize religion and what what this one does

[baldguy]

26. The only reason the police have more firepower is because more firepower is available to the public.

If we had comprehensive, national gun control which made it impossible for unstable people and those of questionable character to legally obtain firearms, and which really banned assault weapons and other military arms & equipment, there wouldn't be a perceived need to militarize the civilian police.

Totalitarians need the public to view their local law enforcement agencies as an occupying force, and they need the police themselves to believe they're entering a war zone every time they step out of the police station. Making sure that every loon and every gun-fetishist out there can get as many guns as they want ensures that this happens.

[Zalatix]

32. Gun control does not mean the cops won't be armed.

Have you ever read up on the USSR or China? They're KNOWN for their well-armed cops and unarmed citizens.

Dictators LOVE unarmed people.

Totalitarians need the public to be afraid of the police.

[baldguy]

45. Dictators love the it when govt does their bidding

And when the people fear the govt & have no recourse to find justice.

Considering the fact that no matter how many guns you have as a civilian, and no matter how big they are, THE GOVT WILL ALWAYS HAVE MORE GUNS & BIGGER GUNS. So, your hypothetical dictator doesn't really care if you're armed or unarmed. Being able to have a gun doesn't mean you're free.

As long as people can stand up & protest what the govt is doing, and can have a reasonable expectation to peacefully effect change in laws, policies & procedures, it's not totalitarianism. All of the pics in your OP (even those from outside the US) show people doing just that. And that's what totalitarians really fear.

OTOH, when the people are alienated from the govt, and can't stand up to protest, and don't have a reasonable expectation to effect change - peacefully or otherwise - it probably is totalitarianism. That's the world the gun-loving RW wants to create.

[Zalatix]

47. Tell that to Moammar Ghadafi. Or Nicolai Caucescu.

[baldguy]

62. Tell that to Randy Weaver, David Koresh and Tim McVeigh.

You want to just give up on this country, and arm for a battle which may never come. The simple fact is that your solution for that battle in the improbable future causes more problems today than they can ever hope to solve tomorrow. The battle you seek will not even occur if we do our duty as citizens today, and fight the battles which need to be fought today. And we don't fight today's battles with firearms - we fight them with ideas.

The solution for the few inept, corrupt and physically violent members of law enforcement isn't to make them confront an armed populace every working day. Your solution would just make them more fearful, more violent & more corrupt. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE TOTALITARIANS ON THE RIGHT WANT! Your guns won't protect you!

[Zalatix]

74. Those were a handful of people.

Nicolai Ceaucescu and Moammar Ghadaffi were taken down by large armies of rebels. Syria/Assad is teetering.

Tunisia and Egypt also fell to large armies of insurgents, though in a less dramatically violent way.

Moammar Ghadaffi, in particular, sent the full might of his army against his people. Where is he now?

The difference is, the people rebelled, and they did not back down. America doesn't have that kind of starch, that should be your argument, and you would be right.

We can, however, wage a non-violent economic war, one of extreme deprivation. Deprive the Corporate State of money and it will wither and die. Go back to bartering, buy local, starve the Corporate State. They can't arrest you for refusing to buy their stuff. Yes, that means we don't need guns to destroy the Corporate State. It can be done with guns - just ask Ghadaffi - but it doesn't need to be.

[baldguy]

77. I don't know if you're deliberately missing the point, or if you're just too dim to get it.

As a direct result of you and your RW allies working to fight the battle against some hypothetical future American Moammar Ghadaffi, we get Randy Weaver & Tim McVeigh today. These are the real threats that the police are faced with, and which are forcing them to be militarized, and which in turn may be used by the totalitarian elements in our society to eliminate problematic individual freedoms like speech, assembly, redress of grievances, etc, etc.

The sad, sick irony is that the very militarization you decry is caused the solutions you propose.

[Zalatix]

78. I'm getting it just fine. I got the point and my argument is flawless.

You, on the other hand, are acting irrationally and are unwilling to face the facts of history. Your accusation of me having "RW allies" is downright paranoid, not to mention completely and hopelessly wrong.

Fact:
Ghadaffi resorted to an all-out war against his people, and was defeated in a military conflict.
Fact:
The same happened with Ceaucescu in Romania.

Fact:
Stripping the police of their funding destroys any hope of militarization. Without funding no such move can be made. What will they pay the troops... quatloos?

[baldguy]

83. Your "argument" - such as it is - doesn't bear the slightest resembance to reality.

Saying it's "flawless" is a sick joke, at best. You're so wedded to your pathetic RW dogma that you're blind to the horrors which would occur if it was fully enacted. The regimes of Ceaucescu and Ghadaffi were both personality cults which grew out of the prior existing power structure, but their respective defeats were entirely different in the respective sources of power for the opposition, the leadership of that opposition & the sources of material support for the opposition. The simple fact that you keep bringing these two unrelated events up as "proof" of your assertions only means that you have no clue as to how or why either of them occurred.

No matter how hard you try to shoehorn them into your preconceptions, like Cinderella's evil step sisters - they're never going to fit.

If can't or won't admit your ridiculous "argument" is anything but "flawless" please tell us what the phrase "Scrisoarea celor şase" means and how it relates to these events which you have found yourself so enamored of. Here's a hint: it only relates to one of them, and since you're so knowledgeable ( ) then you should then be able to tell us exactly what the corresponding person, event or document is in the other.

[Zalatix]

84. Again, my argument had no errors, and you have presented no counter.

There is no RW dogma attached to anything I've said, and you are still being outright irrational.

Nicolai Ceaucescu and Moammar Ghadaffi had armies to protect them and they were STILL overwhelmed. These armies were willing to go much further to oppress their people than anything that law enforcement in America has resorted to. These are historical facts.

You really don't have any sort of case here. However you can just keep continuing with your anger-fest. I will simply outlast your attempted reign of errors.

Have a nice day!

[baldguy]

109. Fail, double fail, and triple fail.

The United States of America is a representative republic with aspirations of democracy. Please, tell us what the democratic institutions were that the Ceaucescu and Ghadaffi regimes replaced? There are none, of course. Ceaucescu was a communist dictator who replaced another communist dictator. And Ghadaffi was a military dictator who replaced another military dictator. So your "argument" first fails in that respect.

Secondly, neither regime was "overwhelmed" by a popular uprising of individuals with privately-owned firearms. That's your RW mythology dogma peeking through.

The Romanian Revolution never saw any battles between an oppressive regime backed by a bloodthirsty army vs. patriots armed with nothing but their grandfather's old hunting rifle. The unarmed protesters did just that - protest. Unfortunately, they were rather ineffectual. What really turned the tide was when officials from within the Romanian govt and Communist Party, with the support of elements of their military, launched a coup d'état from against Ceaucescu. The revolution didn't succeed until the coup plotters started attacking one another, which allowed the coup to fall apart, and the military & the lower echelons of the govt - including the police forces - defected to side with the people protesting in the streets.

The Libyan Revolution began just about the same way - with unarmed protests. After Ghadaffi's paramilitary units fired on civilian protesters, several units of the regular army (which were poorly trained & armed, and which usually were tasked with low-level domestic police duties) defected to the rebels and foreign govts - most notably the UN, the US and NATO - provided arms and military support to the rebels. Again, your RW mythology falters.

To sum up: (1) Before these regimes came to power, the respective countries bore no resemblance to the United States today; (2) Their respective falls prove that the RW myth of personal arms being able to defeat a modern army is putrid crap; and (3) The very people which you dismiss as being merely mindless tools of oppression - the police - were essential in allowing these revolutions to succeed.

Your posts are nothing but fail, because you have no clue what you're talking about & you have done nothing but spread RW bullshit.

[Zalatix]

110. Temper, temper. You're getting absolutely nowhere here except making your case look very bad.

You just don't get tired of spewing your pro-fascist dogma, do you? Your understanding of history is as lacking as your evidence that I am spouting RW "bullshit".

Romania and Libya's governments launched armed assaults on their citizens and they were defeated. Nothing you said contradicts this. In fact, with Libya, you even pointed out a major weakness in modern armies during a domestic insurrection: the likelihood that units will defect.

In fact just to hurt your argument more, I will add another fact: the world's most powerful army - the United States - took a hell of a whallop over in Iraq. Thousands dead and tens of thousands horribly wounded, to the point that we "declared victory" and left out of there, to the chagrin of a lot of Republicans. Worse than that, Afghanistan's armed populace REPELLED THE SOVIET UNION.

No right wing bullshit here, just facts. Your claim that armed citizens can't fight modern armies is bullshit. It was done most recently in Iraq and Libya.

BTW if you think I am spouting RW dogma then alert me. Otherwise you're just being irrational, and I will continue to stand my ground and explode all your talking points.

[baldguy]

112. Simply repeating your assertions doesn't make them any more true.

Especially when you neither offer any further evidence, nor address the factual history I've presented, nor address the problems, distortions & lies of your assertions. And your "argument" is weakened even more (1) when you contradict yourself - first that the police are nothing but thugs who will only ever do the bidding the power elites, then admit that popular uprisings against those power elites can't succeed without the support of those very same police and (2) when you offer support for the likes of the white supremacist, murderer and RW hero Randy Weaver. The fact that it was a law enforcement officer that he killed & that he deliberately put his own family in harm's way must have been the clincher for you, huh?

Next, you'll be whining about the Kenyan in the White House and demanding to see his birth certificate.

[Zalatix]

113. Communist China loves your arguments.

The problem here is that you haven't presented any facts. You're just been getting angry and frustrated. You lost control of this the moment you went off on your "your right wing buddies" schtick with me and now you're stringing together a whole bunch of paranoid accusations culminating in accusing me of wanting to go "birther".

You have no facts. You have no logical argument. All you have is some spoon-fed anti-gun propaganda that might as well have come from a Communist government poster. And of course you have your "anyone who disagrees with me is a right winger" fallback.

Armed citizens have won against modern military forces numerous times. Romania, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, the list goes on. This isn't just an assertion, it is the dictations of history.

Now please, feel free to keep on deluding yourself into thinking I have "right wing" or "birther" allies. I will keep debunking you until you see the futility of your arguments.

[baldguy]

142. There were no "armed citizens" in any of those countries.

The protesters in Romania certainly weren't armed, and in the others nearly all of the weaponry came from defecting police & military units or sympathetic organizations outside the countries and foreign governments. Any claim to the contrary is a lie, and it's a EXTREMIST RIGHTWING LIE to boot.

In trying to tear down any & all govt civil authority (granted by elections in democracies like the US), your allies the murderous extremists like Tim McVeigh, David Koresh and Randy Weaver. They all wanted the police and the govt to be weak, ineffectual and incompetent too - just like you do. The sad, sick fact is that the tragic events initiated by these psychopathic bastards - your friends - played out the way they did mostly because the law enforcement agencies involved did not have or were denied the resources, materiel and training they needed to resolve these incidents peacefully.

You EXTREMIST RIGHTWING solutions would create the very situations you're complaining about.

[Zalatix]

144. Extremist rightwing solutions LOL hahahahah what a desperate little argument!

Anything that opposes your totalitarian rhetoric of "disarm the populace" is a "rightwing lie". Totalitarian governments around the world - those few that remain in the aftermath of the armed citizen rebellions last summer, that is - applaud your angry and horribly inaccurate rhetoric. And LOL @ your caps and bold and italics and all that, as if you think you are making any kind of point. Keep it up, I love it! Oh and good job with your "Zalatix is allies with Tim McVeigh, David Koresh and Randy Weaver" schtick. Got any more right wing names you want to associate with me in your panicked rush to play the guilt-by-association game (in lieu of an actual argument, that is)? BTW Randy Weaver, for all his right wing stupidity, was found not guilty of the crimes you think he committed. That's really gotta sting. Oh, I'm sure you'll claim I'm spouting "rightwing lies" about his not guilty verdicts, too.

BTW the protesters in Romania were armed, and so were the folks in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and so on and so on. That is a fact of history, deal with it. More than likely what happened was the police and military armories got raided by the civilians. Wouldn't be the first time that happened.

The most hilarious part of your post is that you completely ignored my comments upthread where I pointed out that my goal is to remove funding for the military and police, cripple them with a lack of money, and then force REFORMS. You can find it right here

We can, however, wage a non-violent economic war, one of extreme deprivation. Deprive the Corporate State of money and it will wither and die. Go back to bartering, buy local, starve the Corporate State. They can't arrest you for refusing to buy their stuff. Yes, that means we don't need guns to destroy the Corporate State. It can be done with guns - just ask Ghadaffi - but it doesn't need to be.

Now tell me, how can the Government punish people for doing that? Oh no wait, you obviously completely missed that in your quest to bore me with your "EXTREMIST RIGHTWING ARRARARAARRRGGHH!!!" rampage that sounds just like a page out of a Communist Chinese anti-gun propaganda pamphlet.

Armed rebellions work. Economic deprivation also works. History completely disagrees with your arguments. However, Beijing must be pleased as punch at your angry rhetoric. It all comes right out of their playbook. They must, in fact, be not just your allies, but your mentors.

[baldguy]

145. You're getting your talking points & tactics directly from Faux Snooze & FreeRepublic.

Repeating your lies doesn't make them true, and accusing Democrats of being communists doesn't advance your "argument". These just expose you for the pathetic RW troll you are.

[Zalatix]

146. You're getting your talking points directly from Beijing.

I'm not lying. I am 100% correct and you are 100% wrong. Accusing a DEMOCRAT of being a RW troll is in fact against the rules, and I'm surprised you haven't gotten hidden by a jury for your constant personal attacks.

BTW Beijing isn't left wing. It's right wing, like your arguments.

[Upton]

40. My owning of guns..

means I don't have to consider calling these unpredictable assholes whenever I hear a suspicious noise on my property. I consider that a good thing.

[DiverDave]

101. You might want to re-asses your comfort with a gun

after reading this:
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/overkill-rise-paramilitary-police-raids-america

No- knock warrants are wrong many times, the people who didnt hear 'police!' thought they were defending themselves.
most are dead.

sorry had to fix link

[daaron]

28. Sorry, but we've got China beat (per capita) by a long way. nt

We have more people in prison per capita than Stalin did.

[LiberalFighter]

34. Some of them consider themselves elite like those on swat forces.

There is no efn reason why police need tanks. And they shouldn't. It is a waste of taxpayer money.

[99Forever]

35. A huge ugly storm is..

.. gathering on the horizon. Many more will likely die before we right the wrongs of the 1%. I am ashamed of the world we have left for future generations.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. These pictures.......

Land of the Free............

[lunatica]

44. You can't fight fear

The police state is here and there isn't much we can do about it except accept the fact that it's here. Your rant is a righteous one and I agree with it wholeheartedly, but you and I lack the rallying cry or the means to stop it.

The 1% and Occupy's description of them is absolutely right, but if there was ever a way for us to stop this from happening I have yet to discover it. I'm a child of the 60s and back then we called them Pigs and The Man, so we Boomers know exactly what you're talking about and if you know your history you know we fought back, both peacefully and violently. It seems things haven't changed much, except now the younger generation is up against what we had to face. The police have only gotten stronger

[Skidmore]

51. They think they are the military.

And they behave like they are at standing at war against the people instead of promoting peace in our communities. A combination of the War on Drugs and the overreach and reactivity of the Bush administration and a congress too willing to cede its authority after 9/11 gave them powers they had never had.

[DefenseLawyer]

54. A year or so an officer was killed in the line of duty in Indianapolis

He was a veteran beat cop. In my few dealings with him I found him to be a good guy. He conducted a routine traffic stop of an old man with schizophrenia and a gun and was killed. Of course the city mourned a senseless killing and it reminded us that being a cop is dangerous. But it really struck me that at his public memorial service the police department chaplain referred to the officer as a "fallen warrior". That's really the problem in a nutshell. He wasn't a warrior, he's not in a war. He didn't die in a war, he died trying to deal with an armed mentally ill person. Yet the police culture is to see themselves as warriors; As combatants instead of public servants; in a war with the community instead of a part of it. It's much easier to justify extreme violence and illegal tactics when you view your job in the context of waging a war instead of keeping the peace.

[treestar]

70. The war metaphor is overused everywhere

[gulliver]

56. Yay! Another absurd FTP thread!

We really need a separate FTP forum so that the twenty or so informed citizens who are interested can share their vital information in a more focused way.

[randome]

60. No 'information' here. Just emotional venting.

Yeah, maybe a Venting forum for all the things that drive you crazy about modern life.

Like traffic signals. I mean, how Orwellian is THAT?

[Zalatix]

79. I know you won't reply to this and your comments are just drive-by's, but

Do you deny that we have the largest population of prisoners in the world?

Do you deny the rampant nature of police brutality against Occupy protesters?

Only if you can deny that can you say this thread has "no information" here.

You can now retract your statements. Otherwise I will be happy to give you more facts that you cannot refute.

[randome]

80. I don't deny anything.

As I've said in many other of my 'drive-by' posts, it isn't fair to deny that the police do thousands of good deeds every day.

You seem to want to set them up as your personal enemy for some reason.

Yes, police can be abusive. And, yes, protesters can do stupid things. For instance, the 3 who were arrested in Chicago for planning violence.

I don't care about being right or wrong, I just want to see things as they are.

[Zalatix]

82. The police system we have is designed to hire psychopaths.

We do not need police forces with armored units that look like tanks.

We don't need riot police that show up at Occupy protests to attack peaceful demonstrators.

The system is the enemy. We need reform. SERIOUS reform.

[NCTraveler]

107. "Do you deny the rampant nature of police brutality against Occupy protesters? "

I do deny that the abuse is rampant. Occupy protest are held all over the country with few incidents of police brutality. Many of the incidents that are out there come from the same areas. Meaning these areas have problems. Any overwhelming majority of occupy protests around the country are extremely peaceful.

[treestar]

69. What's FTP?

[randome]

72. "Fuck The Police".

It's the go-to phrase for those who feel powerless in their lives.

[Zalatix]

102. Defending cops is the last resort of sycophants and fans of dictatorships.

Betcha got nothing to say about this.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/12557216-418/county-oks-600000-settlement-in-police-torture-case.html

[randome]

103. A torture case? Do you really think I'm going to defend something like that?

Your view of these kind of things is childish. I don't know why you can't face Reality. Cops behave abominably sometimes. Monstrously, even. Is that a strong enough word for you?

They also save lives. Get it yet? Reality demands a more nuanced view of things.

Not all 800,000 cops in this country think the same way. Obviously, by your logic, a doctor who is convicted of murder should taint the entire profession as murderers.

Geeze, not everything is black and white.

Torture is, yes. But that doesn't distract from the REALITY that cops save lives every day. So let's agree that the bad ones should be weeded out. Imprisoned, even.

[Zalatix]

105. Your views of cops are downright sycophantic. And unrealistic, to boot.

The problem with the police brutality is systematic.

The entire profession invites psychopaths. You're going to go absolutely nowhere with the delusion that it doesn't.

You can go on defending the police. Nothing in the world's going to stop me or others from pushing for the institution to be de-funded, and then radically reformed.

Unfortunately for you once we liberals DO find a way to get our money out of funding the police, you're going to find it a very hard time getting our money back into it.

[LanternWaste]

104. ntractable dogmas deny room for anything else...

I suppose it's either Authoritarians or the Fuck-The-Policers.

Intractable dogmas deny possibility for anything else...

[jberryhill]

58. Just like religious leaders

[lonestarnot]

61. They are part of the new religion of America: the cult of the Blue servants of Robber Baron Capitali

Objection! Asked and answered.

[Dawson Leery]

64. End the lionizing of those in uniform, especially cops.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164501/paramilitary-policing-seattle-occupy-wall-street

"if we are unable to influence or neutralize police unions,"

Yes, break the FOP!

[davekriss]

67. O these errors in facts!

You say: "We have a massive, growing and increasingly privatized prison-industrial complex with arguably the largest prison population in the world outside of China...".

WRONG!

We have the largest prison population - both in terms of rate and number - on the face of the earth, China included.

We imprison 730 per 100,000, whereas China imprisons around 160 per. In absolute numbers we imprison about 2.4 million people, while China imprisons about 1.6 million (all data from www.prisonstudies.org).

U.S.A.!!! We are number one! Do we get to call this a police state yet??

[Puregonzo1188]

71. Yes. And many here do as well.

[TheKentuckian]

75. You are far along the path to fucked as soon as you have law enforcement instead of peace officers

The purpose of the police cannot be law enforcement or it leads to them being pumped up for drug wars and acting as agents of the security state which then in turn puts them in danger of rapid blowback and creates a feedback loop of separation from the populace.


Cops need must enforce the peace and that means making sure my rights don't overstep their boundaries into mine and nothing more.

Law enforcement means your call must go unanswered because resources are diverted to speed traps, scanning plates to see who has insurance, looking for "suspicious activity", peeping in windows to verify primary seatbelt laws, and hunting weed.

It doesn't help that the police are under no obligation to protect and serve or even to stop and render aid unless they see a violation of the law. You could be waving them down like mad because you are in danger but they are free to ignore.

Law enorcement should be defunded.

[CANDO]

76. Type A personalities are drawn to the work.

I remember reading that psyche testing showed that somewhere upward of 90% of police officers have type A personalities which means they crave authority over others. And what better than to have the authority of government behind them.

[Iggo]

81. Yay, Cops!

They're the best!