= new reply since forum marked as read
That's all. 
POOR MAN! What a system we have. Drugs are illegal when they are most always a victimless crime. Guns you can get anywhere just about no matter what. And because guns are so prevalent, cops are scared shitless and shoot before saying word one.
I am beside myself. Oh, this is just too freaking much.
SUE that sheriff department and send that idiot KILLER to prison. There has to be a price paid, and I don't mean just money.
Sending love and deep sympathy to that poor family. DAMN IT!
Cops are on a murdering rampage in too many places.
No "Death with dignity" in California.
CA Welfare and Institutions Code § 5150 (Lanterman–Petris–Short Act - "LPS"
allows a qualified officer or clinician to involuntarily confine a person deemed to have a mental disorder that makes him or her a danger to self, a danger to others, and/or gravely disabled. A qualified officer, which includes any California peace officer, as well as any specifically designated county clinician, can request the confinement after signing a written declaration.
Si vis pacem, para bellum is from De Re Militari by Vegetius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Flavius_Vegetius_Renatus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Militari
The actual book:
http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/
THe phase" "For peace, prepare for war" does NOT mean to act like you are at war, but to be prepared if you are attacked. It regards MILITARY training, you look at your potential enemies and train as if they are attacking you. Thus you are NOT an easy target and peace will be kept for the price of war is to high.
Thus you keep strong points so if the enemy attacks you have a place to fall back to. You train your army so it can fight if he has to.
On the other hand you do NOT keep your army on the frontier, but further back so if you are attacked, you have time to react before you actually go into combat. Vegetius was an advocate of defeating an enemy WITHOUT going into combat by destroying his supply lines and supplies.
What does that have to do with police escapes me. Police are NOT soldiers. Effective police are one with the community their police. Effective Police are NOT an occupying power making sure the conquered people do not revolt. Effective Police are NOT holding a strong point with a plan to hold out till relief arrive. Effective Police are NOT away from the Frontier so they can counter attack as the enemy's attack stalls.
Now, you can use the phase to mean, prepare for an attack, thus be prepared if one of the member of the community being police attacks you. Thus having a billy club or a gun, can be justified for they are to be used in an emergency situation (and in most emergency, the billy club is more effective. for you can charge with a billy club, you have to take a stand to aim a pistol and an attack is most cases your best defense in an ambush.
Another thing that phase can mean is carry a first aid kit and be train in its use, just in case you run across someone where such a kit and first aid is needed.
The biggest problems with police since WWII, has been the decision to go with Automobiles. Yes, the US as whole embraced the Automobile, but it also killed the sense of community. People do NOT interact as neighbors when they go some place in an Automobile. They drive to a store and interact as a buyer and seller. They go to work and interact as Employee, co-Employee and Employer. That is NOT the same as acting as a community where people interact as members of the same group, not as members of different groups that happen to interact.
Police suffer from the same problem and effective police need to be one with the community, with no sense of community effective police becomes impossible. To defeat this the Police have to interact with the community on the things the community thinks are important. Playgrounds and schools are often what a community wants and police need to support such desires.
Yes, people say they want more police protection, but that is NOT want the people want, they want police around when they need them and that has NEVER been possible all the time. The only way to address the desire for more police protection is to see how the police can do so, and that requires interaction with the Community they are policing.
Yes, police should be prepared if they find themselves in an emergency situation (back to "To have peace, prepare for war" but when it comes to Police they have to accept they must be one with the community they are policing, and that is often NOT the case and that is the biggest problem with police today.
Now Vegitus's book is often compared to Emperor Maurice "Strategikon".
http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/impindex.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategikon_of_Maurice
The question is when was Vegitus's book written. It is clearly written post Constantine, for it is in late Latin not Classical Latin and when it comes to formation of the Legions mentions where Christ's image should be carried as while as where the Emperor's Image should be carried.
The question is when was in written. There is a reference to "Justinian" as an "Old Story" but Justinian ruled 527 to 565. The Book is dedicated to Emperor Valentinian but there are three Emperors of that name, Valentinian I 364-375. Valentinian II 375 to 392 and Valentinian III who ruled, 425 to 455. If the Justinian comment is accurate not a later addition, then all of these Emperors are to old. If the Justinian Comment was a later add on then all three are possible.
The biggest problem is Maurice "Strategikon". Maurice was emperor from 582 to 602, when he was killed in a battle for Emperorship, the first time that had happen since Constantine became Emperor (Constantine Emperor 306-337). That is the longest period of peaceful transfer of power in Roman History (and remains the longest if you see Julian's march on Constantine II as such a conflict but Constantine died the day before the battle and both armies declared Julian Emperor in 361, Julian's death fighting the Persians in 364 probably prevented a Civil war but either date still makes it the longest period of peaceful transfer of power in Roman History).
Maurice wrote in GREEK and "Strategikon" was a book intended for the officers of his troops. It is an emphasis on Cavalry tactics, which the Roman Army was converting to at that time period (Maurice was Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, a name the Roman Empire never used, instead till 1453 that Empire, often called the Byzantine Empire today, called itself the Roman Republic).
Given Maurice wrote in Greek how read was Vegetius's book, which was in Latin and emphasis Infantry tactics? On the other hand Maurice only mention infantry tactics in that Cavalry should be trained in such tactics so they can be used where such tactics are called for.
Maurice ruled the Eastern Empire AFTER Justinian had reconquered Italy (and saw the population drop almost 90% in those wars, with Rome dropping to a population of Zero from a population of over one million less then 100 years before).
Rome itself may have reached a population of Zero in 530 AD, the Roman Senate is believed to have survived to at least 603 AD. Yes, the Senate survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire, survived barbarian rule, but then disappeared under Imperial Rule from Constantinople (Through the Lombards had invaded Italy in the 580s making Italy a patch quilt of Imperial strongholds and Lombardic strongholds till the invasion of Italy by Pepin in the 700s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Senate#Post-Imperial_Senate_in_Rome
Back to Vegetius. Vegetius's book next appears during the Crusades, where the Crusaders picked it up is unknown, but probably from their then Byzantine Empire allies. It is used by the Crusaders extensively and used extensively in the 1700s (after 1700 its use declined, for modern weapons and transport made its points less and less applicable, but it is still a hugely influential book even today).
On the other hand Maurice "Strategikon" was forgotten till the 1700s when it was found and first translated. Today the only translation are still in copyright, unlike Vegetius book where the translations are no longer in Copyright, or like the version I mentioned above was never in copyright for it was an official government publication.
Side note: The comments to the British translation as to Vegetius's book NOT been used in the late Empire was common belief at that time period, more recent research has indicated it was used. The basis of this mistake was the belief the post Constantine Army went to all Cavalry forces, but that does NOT appear to be the case till the after the time of Justinian 200 years later. For example the Battle of Adrianople in 378 AD was believed to be an all cavalry fight, do to archaeology research on that sight it is now seen as a mostly infantry fight. Thus during WWII, the view it was a cavalry fight met Vegetius's book, with its emphasis on infantry could not have been used. Today the view is that battle was mostly infantry through that position in the trash.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/valens/a/Adrianople.htm
People still put the book in the late 300s. I am sorry, I lean to the early 600s. While Maurice wrote in Greek (and probably did not know Latin), that was NOT the norm in that time period. Latin was still alive and well in Barbarian occupied Western Europe, and in various locations in present day Eastern Europe (Romania for example, Romania is a Latin Language through with a huge input of Slavic Terms). Maurice was killed by Phocas in 602 who in turn was overthrown by Heraclius in 610 AD.
http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/heraclis.htm
Heraclius was from Carthage, where his father had been military governor. Carthage spoke Latin not Greek at that time period thus Heraclius had to know Latin. Heraclius is an interesting Emperor of him and the later Roman Empire, see below. In my opinion, do to what was going on under Heraclius, military reforms was needed. This extended to both Infantry and Cavalry formations. This had been seen under the Emperors in the 500s. Thus I lean to Vegetius being from the late 500s early 600s and maybe tied in with the Reforms of Maurice. One way to view this is the reason Maurice did NOT mention Infantry tactics, is his troops had Vegetius and his officers knew BOTH Latin and Greek thus you wrote in the language you were more comfortable in. The reference to Valentinian may be to a lower court official that we do not call Emperor but people around him did.
Sidenote: Co-Emperors were known at that time period, we believe we know all of them, but they could be a few we do NOT know of, we know of some Roman Emperors only through one book, that is considered unreliable for it conflicts with other books on other Emperors, prior to the introduction of Linen paper in the 1300s, the paper in general use was parchment, which is leather and thus cost a lot more than the much cheaper Linen Paper, and even Pulp paper invented in 1801, thus a lot of history is lost for no one wrote it down for the cost of Parchment exceeded the value they put on writing that history down. Think about it in terms of Computers, how much is preserved and written down today, that people just threw away 40 years ago before we had computers? Computers permit keeping records even cheaper, thus more records are kept and the same was true with Pulp paper after 1801 and Linen paper after the 1300s.
Thus Vegetius may be from the late 500 to early 600s as part of the general reform of the Roman Army do to the pressure put on it by the Persians/Avars/Slavs and later the Arabs and Slavs (When the Arab Conquest was stopped around 700, the Roman went on the offensive against they greater enemy, the Slavs not the Arabs. By 700 the Eastern Empire was clearly Greek, all pretense of being Latin was given up. This would lead to a break with the Western Church, which slowly embraced the Franks in the 700s, crowning Charlemagne Emperor in 800.
Thus where does Vegetius fit in this history? Why was Vegetius used during the Crusade but NOT Maurice's "Strategikon"? By the time of the Crusades the Roman Army was no longer the Cavalry heavy army it had been in the 700 to 800s. One reason for this was the Empire had to replaced its previous horse archers with Northmen/Viking Foot Archers starting in the 800s. Such Horse Archers were the key to Maurice "Strategikon" but no longer available to the Greeks, thus that book may have been viewed as obsolete by the time of the Crusades.
Sidenote: How obsolete is an open debate, the English used Horse Archers AND foot Archers in their wars with the French in the 100 year war. These archers were armed with English Long Bows not the Recurve Composite bows of the Steeps that was used by the Cavalry of Maurice. Thus it is possible that Maurice's book was read during the Crusades, but Vegetius's book was seen as the more relevant book and with its widespread use after the introduction of Linen paper and the printing press became well known while Maurice's "Strategikon" was forgotten.
Brief History of Herclius and his time period, the last Roman-Persian War AND the War of Arab Conquest.
Heraclius took power while Persia had expanding to its greatest extent since the Time of Alexander the Great 900 years before. Technically Persia, the Avars and the Slavs were kept at bay under Phocas, but it was clear the situation was deteriorating.
In 610 Heraclius took over the Empire, but then proceeded to lose Damascus in 613, Jerusalem in 614, and Egypt in 619. In 619 Heraclius signed a peace treaty with the Avars and the Slavs (freeing his Western Flank) and proceeded to reform his army. Thus by 619 Egypt was under a non Roman ruler for the first time in over 500 years (Persia had grabbed it) as was Syria and what is today Israel.
Heraclius after 619 retrained his army. Heraclius did not lead his army to fight till 622, while he was retraining that army (The exact re-training is unknown for many years it was believed Heraclius had made the leaders of his Army, the Governors of the area they were being retrained in, thus creating the "Themes" of later Byzantine Armies. Today that is no longer as clear, the Themes seem to be more a product of his grandson Constan II, and in response to how to handle the continued fight with the Arabs).
Heraclius did retrain the army and in 622 lead it into combat. The fighting was inconclusive till 626 when the Persians, Slavs and Avars all marched on Constantinople, but that attempt was defeated by the Roman Fleet but it so weakened the Persians that in August 627 Heraclius destroyed the Persian Army. The Persians then sued for peace and all lands formerly held by Rome was returned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nineveh_%28627%29
That is the height of Heraclius's rule. Both the Roman and Persian armies were weak, to weak to carry on. Heraclius received no additional revenue from the lands he recovered, for the Roman Elite went to those areas and reclaimed that lands and demanded rent payments from the peasants for the time period under Persian Rule (8 to 9 years of Rent Payments to be made in one year). Under Roman Rule Egypt by this time period was owned by 6 or 7 Romans. This demand for that rent money would come back to hurt the Romans.
In 634 the Arabs from Arabia invaded Syria in 636 the Roman Army would be defeated in a massive defeat by the Arabs in the battle of Yarmouk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
One of the biggest problem with the Roman Army at Yarmouk was that the local peasants had been under PERSIAN rule for eight to ten years. Then in 627 returned to Roman Rule and Roman land owners. Like Egypt, this part of the Empire was owned by just a few Roman Elite (the 1%) and they wanted their rent money for the time period under Persian Rule (Persia REFUSED to recognize Roman Land Ownership, transferred it to themselves, but being NEW owners wanted less then the former owners, the peasants loved the lower Rent payments).
Anyway with Roman Rule restored, those annual rents went back up and the peasants hated it. In many ways the Roman need for supplies for their army was the problem, Rome had not had to raise such a large army for centuries AND the peasants resented having to give up their food for the army AFTER they had to pay the rent for the land to the Roman Elite.
The Peasants remember what had happened to them under Persian rule, ended up supporting the Arabs for the Persian had cut their rent payments and they expected the Arabs to do the same (while no record of such promises being made, it looks like the rent was cut). No massive conversion of these peasants occurred at this time period, Mohammad had a prejudice against farmers and the early Islamic Elites reflected that prejudice, thus the peasants stayed Christian and many remain Christian to this day (With the biggest attack on Christianity in that part of the World being since 1947 and then by the state of Israel, thus Bethlehem which has since at least the 300s been a Christian Town is under Israeli Occupation a majority Islamic town today, the Arabs could not do it, the Turks could not do it but Israel has).
In 636 the Roman Army was facing shortages do to the actions of its 1%. This would lead to the destruction of the Roman Army and the lost of Egypt in 639. Efforts were made in 642 to retake Egypt, but the same problem of supply that hit the Roman Army in 636, hit the Roman Army of 642, the Egyptian Peasants like the Syrian Peasants (and the Italian Peasants in the form of the Lombards, the Spanish Peasants in the form of the Goths, and the French Peasants under the Franks) opt to support an invader in the grounds it would lead to a transfer of title to the land they were working and thus lower rent. This explains the Egyptian's Bishops comment that the Arabs kicked out the "Tyrants" (All of these areas stayed Christian for centuries for Christianity was tied in with being Romans, something the peasants still valued under non-Roman Rule, but the same peasants HATED the Roman 1% and thus liked being under NON Roman Rule).
Yes the late Roman Empire was a situation where the 1% was destroying the country and the 99% was in open revolt against them. Religion was an effort to get the 1% to work with the 99% and seems to have worked to a degree (Egypt would stay Christian till the Crusades, through ruled by Moslems, and some people think as late as Napoleon's conquest in 1798, through the latest date most historians think is around 1600).
Notice, the peasants did NOT come to oppose their 1% till they had lived under some government NOT tied in with their own government. Once under such foreign rule, and the resulting lower rents the peasants supported the Invaders (notice I use the term RENT, for it was the payments to the 1% that was the problem NOT the taxes demanded by the Government).
As to Greece and modern day Turkey, the heartland the the Dark ages and Middle Ages Byzantine Empire, it was the part of the Empire that had the lowest value of agricultural land and had adopted Roman Law as to land inheritance to a degree even unheard of in Italy. Thus during the Roman Empire, Greece and Turkey had the lowest ownership rate by the Roman 1% of any part of the Empire (even the Balkans had higher ownership rate by the 1%).
Roman Troops were recruited from this area (second to what was post WWII Yugoslavia) for the simple reason it was a poor area for farming thus many farmers were willing to serve 20 years in the Army as long as they obtain title to the land they owned. Diocletian had adopted that policy for the Roman Army in the 290s and remain the law in parts of Turkey till WWI (When the Turks took over the land went to Turkish Troops, but the law remained).
Thus the area of the Roman Empire with the least controled by the Roman 1% was the part of the Roman Empire that survived. After 750 the Empire actually expanded for it no longer had to worry about its 1%, most had been eliminated by the needs of the Themes. The Themes was how the Byzantine Empire raised its troops. The Themes existed by 700, by 750 the Empire was on the march. In the 800s the Empire was in the position to retake all of the Middle East, but do to internal infighting failed to do so.
The Themes were both Military and Political organizations. Each theme had to produce a set number of soldiers ON COMMAND OF THE EMPEROR. During peace time such soldiers were farmers, or local knights. During war time they were mobilised for offensive warfare. If a soldier did not fight he lost his land, for it was given to someone who would. If a female inherited the land that the military duty belonged to, her husband had to carry it out. If that sounds like Middle Ages Feudalism, it is believe where it first developed and then spread to Western Europe in the 800s as the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne collapsed.
This Greek Empire would later fall in the middle ages as the effect of the Roman Elites on Western Europe finally died out in the 900s (No family in Europe can trace themselves in the male line prior to the 900s, that is how extensive was the reforms of Western Europe was in that century). With Europe out of the control of the Roman 1% by 1000 AD and the Warming up of the World do to the Middle Ages Warming period, Western Europe rebound, could afford to expand and went into the Crusades. The Crusades ended up rewriting the trade routes so that Constantinople was by passed and that city became a shell of its Dark Age self and ended up a back water to the rest of Europe.
A complicating factor was the division between the Eastern and Western Churches, the Greeks ended up joining with the Turks starting in 1054 and the battle of Manzikert but that merger becoming unstoppable with the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the Fourth Crusades (the only Crusades condemned by the Vatican AS IT WAS OCCURRING).
The Greeks and Turks merged to form the Ottoman Empire, but it was a marriage that was NOT going to last, by the 1600s the Turks were NO longer treating the Greeks as equals, by 1800 the Greeks had come to see the Turks like they had viewed the "Latins" in 1204-1453, faithless enemies.
Yes, I know the Turks took Constantinople in 1453, but that changed how the two people would interact within the growing Turkish-Greek Empire not that it was no longer a Turkish-Greek Empire. It was the Turks attempt to make their Empire more Islamic in the 1600s and 1700s that turned the Greeks against them but that is another story about another 1% of another period of time and they greed.
Sorry about the rant about the Late Roman Empire, but we are looking to do what Rome did and that was to cater to its 1% so much that the 99% cared less of who ruled, including being ruled by foreigners as long as their cost of living went up (and rent and payment for housing is much more important then Taxes in that regard). We are heading for disaster and we need to reverse course but no one in a leadership position is doing so.
- Not unless we stop it. ''If we don't fight now, I guess we'll have to be 
