Comments on: Scenes from Militarized America

By: liberranter

liberranter — Mon, 19 Nov 2012 03:45:42 +0000

Instead of stenciling “police” on helmet and having “police” patches they should have to have their names visible on their uniforms, too.

I’m guessing that the only reason they don’t stencil anything on the uniforms is because even though these brainless assholes certainly DO need to be reminded every few minutes of what they are and what their names are, they can’t read. Ergo, there’s no point in stenciling anything on their uniforms on the assumption that being able to read these reminders will be of any help to them – not to mention that “Prick,” “Dick,” “Shithead,” and “Fucktard” contain too many letters and are too hard for these idiots to remember anyway.

By: Vic Kelley

Vic Kelley — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 19:08:51 +0000

It’s only 2 photos, but I can’t see any names. I hate that. Instead of stenciling “police” on helmet and having “police” patches they should have to have their names visible on their uniforms, too. Without their names I consider them cowards. Actually I consider them cowards anyway. In the top photo it looks like after the raid they just loiter. Why not, once everything is “secured,” be replaced by uniformed police and take the soldiers back to their barracks. Of course in some communities – mine included – regular police uniform is BDU and boots so what’s the difference.

By: Personanongrata

Personanongrata — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 18:19:09 +0000

“War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society these irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.” ~ Randolph Bourne The US government needs a humanitarian intervention.

By: Whim

Whim — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 03:59:14 +0000

Notice in the picture showing the various SWAT ninjas that their uniforms are not….UNIFORM.

Some are black or blue. Some are green. Some appear gray. Some have different colored vests.

It’s called a Uniform for a reason: Uniformity.

By: liberranter

liberranter — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:15:23 +0000

Hey, look on the bright side: at least their faces aren’t protected by anything bullet-resistant. Plenty of room to squeeze off a bulls-eye shot at the noggin from a distance.

By: Yank lll

Yank lll — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:56:35 +0000

The illegal militarization of police in America is a disgusting corruption of Liberty and an Embarrassment to the concept of America. Anyone who would become a part of such a totalitarian contrivance of our laws is a Quisling by nature and a traitor to the concept these same mongrels spout everywhere.. “to serve and Protect”.
The idea that civil servants can break the law and violate our rights simply because some corrupt judiciary puts them on a pedestal is abhorrent and illegal. When the corrupt judiciary made it more of a crime to kill a cop than the people they serve the die was cast for a power grab by the egotistical wannabe GI’s who insist on “playing soldier” at our expense while they prance around in combat gear “claiming” to serve us while at the same time they shoot us down, injure our children and violate our rights with a crooked smile.
This vile and illegal concept of “Police Militarization” was enabled by the Clinton administration that gave them a pass on using any recovered drug siezures for their own funding. Now we the people must right the wrong and put this corrupt and illegal geanie back in its box and nail the lid shut with legislation that makes this contrivance of civil service illegal, their corrupt funding unlawful and their equipment turned over to civilian review boards for destruction and scrapping.
Its time “Peace Officer” was put back into policing and the concept of “Playing GI” put to bed once and for all by performing psyche evaluations on all law enforcement at every level and get rid of the insecure militants who only seek power and control once and for all to make civil service an honorable position once more.
Citizens have a lawful right to resist unlawful arrest because law enforcement has no authority or lawful right ro break the law in the performance of their duty.. not to mention the concept of Free Will.

Yank lll

By: Whim

Whim — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:07:44 +0000

Again, no NAMETAPES on the uniforms means the police are not individually identifiable for their misdeeds.

And, wearing a balaclava is used to further hide their identify.

Judges could easily rectify the War on Americans by throwing charges out.

By: BamBam

BamBam — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:12:57 +0000

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/otto-zehm-beating-death-karl-thompson-mental-disabilities_n_2143920.html

4.5 year sentence for a cop killing a man (note I don’t say innocent, as that should be irrelevant). Prosecutors all did nothing. Other cops got nothing. This is where private justice should take over.

By: CyniCAl

CyniCAl — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 01:54:16 +0000

Here’s a heartwarming tale from the LA Times about the LACSD. Seems they have themselves a trophy culture. Next up: cutting off the ears of their victims, no doubt.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sheriff-text-20121117,0,7884988.story?track=rss

By: Len

Len — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:48:47 +0000

Mario, I insist on interpreting the 2nd according to those who ratified the US constition, and the claims made by those who supported it in the state ratification conventions. Do you have a viable alternative? Have you spent much time studying the conventions and/or the legal context of the day, such as fiduciary responsibility, reasonableness, the understanding of grants at that time, etc.?

By: Cynical in New York

Cynical in New York — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:42:46 +0000

Just remember kids; They’re only here to protect you

By: L. Brooks

L. Brooks — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:36:17 +0000

When I first saw the colour photo I thought it was a photo of a German soldier from WWII.

By: C. S. P. Schofield

C. S. P. Schofield — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:24:13 +0000

Len & Mario;

If you insist on interpreting the Second Amendment according the the rules of English grammar, then the only Constitutional limitation would be that the weapons would have to be ones that could be carried by one person. I suppose that one might stretch a point and say that the weapon would have to be one that could be used by one person. That would eliminate nuclear missiles and (despite dozens of action films to the contrary) belt-fed machine guns.

Naturally this approach is too simple for the lawyers who run the court system. It is notable, however, that in one of the landmark cases on Gun Control the Supreme Court ruled that sawed-off shotguns could tightly controlled because they had no legitimate use in warfare.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that the Second Amendment was intended to cover all military arms; after all private persons were permitted to own armed ships, which were the biggest ‘weapons systems’ of the time.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:40:02 +0000

@ #9 Mario

This may surprise you, but rocket launchers are actually legal as long as you register them as a destructive device as required by the 1934 National Firearms Act and buy a tax stamp for the launcher and each explosive rocket.

By: Pinandpuller

Pinandpuller — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:35:29 +0000

My understanding is the ROE overseas are quite strict. US soldiers can get in deep shit for shooting civilians. Especially if they don’t fire first. American cops have no such limitations.

By: The Stag Blog | Friday Afternoon Links

The Stag Blog | Friday Afternoon Links — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 22:38:17 +0000

[...] The Agitator has another dose of the militarized state of police today. These pictures are scary. [...]

By: Dante

Dante — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:43:27 +0000

Sooner or later, the majority of Americans will realize that the people who naturally gravitate toward police work are, as a general rule, mentally unstable and prone to gratuitous acts of violence for enjoyment. Oh, and they lie a lot, too.

Psycopaths and Pathological Liars, we call them here.

What happens when you put mentally unstable sadists in a position of authority?

Protect & Serve (Themselves!)

By: Len

Len — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:43:22 +0000

Mario, #9, rocket launchers etc. would be up to the states. Unless a power was granted to the federal government it can’t be exercised, and there is no power period allowing the federal government to restrict weaponry, not even under the treaty power. I will give my usual disclaimer though, in that the US constitution was thrown out by Lincoln who clearly didn’t like this….The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

By: JLS

JLS — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:25:47 +0000

Dan Z “Far too many of these guys want to play soldier, if they want they can sign up for that as well.”

Hell no they won’t! Are you crazy? People overseas actually fight back!

No it’s much safer to be brave and heroic against people who can’t fight back.

By: albatross

albatross — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 21:13:45 +0000

Fortunately, there’s just no way you can see for this sort of thing to go badly for us as a country. Really, having every two bit county sheriff, state regulatory board, and federal agency regulating toilet seats have its own private army is totally a force for stability in the world.