The militarization of the police

reply to post by andre18


Where are those photos taken? They look like they are escoriting somene. In which case, yeah. It makes sense to be a little overboard on weaponry.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Yeah, I guess I’m just not used to seeing that kind of weaponry. See I live in Australia where the police don’t hassle us like they do in America – although it’s more like we wouldn’t tolerate it if they did, where not really that intimidated by them.
I’m trying to demonstrate the type of dominants the police seem to have over the public, here’s a better example….

reply to post by andre18


Alrught, where are these from. it looks like the police are using non lethal weapons to subdue a out of control crowd. If they were using lethal weapons, there'd be dead , blood, and holy hell from the fallout.

reply to post by andre18
Edit double post.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by RuneSpider]

reply to post by RuneSpider


It’s not so much the weapons as it is the uniform....

Don't you find it unusual that you couldn't identify them in a line up? There entire uniform is designed for that exact reason...so they can't be hold accountable....

reply to post by andre18


There's a video floating around here somewhere, where a woman in a suit was shot in the back with a rubber bullet while she was walking away from one of these police-lines. She was then shot in the face, cowering behind a paper-board sign. Then the video cuts to the whole sqad at their debriefing where the commander gets everyone laughing and joking about it, and making fun of the woman.

Slightly off topic but my local police department has a waverunner... the irony is, we dont have any sizebale bodies of water in the city I live in.

They also have a red honda civic si with tinted windows and out state plates they use to entice people into street racing.

Originally posted by goosdawg
Oh yeah, it's coming, no doubt about it.

Thugs in blue.

Apart from their allegiance to their elite masters, no longer for the common man is it "to protect and serve" it's now, "to put-down and suppress."

Quite true! However bleak this future seems and it very well maybe for a time. The automatons in blue shall become the victims finally and their blue shall become red- stained with blood of the innocent and this stain of shame will serve us all as reminder- their is safety in numbers when the circle of love is based in truth.

This can be fought, but never beaten- sadly many will die only to find the truth lives forever.


Jackinthebox....Here is the video: www.youtube.com...



[edit on 3-4-2008 by dk3000]

reply to post by andre18


Not quiet sure what you mean here. Those look like riot suits. In a riot people throw things, people hit, kick, bite, shoot whatever they can. You don't go into asituation like that in jeans and a Tshirt. The helmet protects their head, the uniform protects their bodies, the same reason troops wear body armor in Iraq. They have the covering over the lower part of their face in case of gas. It's designed to protect the wearer as much as possible. Now, wear are you getting these pics from and what is the situation?
I watched the video and tried to take it froma impartial point of view. When she was shot in the leg she started antagonising them to shoot her again. This something i'd like to know more about, especially from the view of the officers, especially since the vid is from the news. I don't understand why conspiracy theorists doubt the media until it panders to their point of view.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by RuneSpider]

Originally posted by andre18
Here’s a good example of the kind of unnecessary police force I’m talking about – it’s good to know we don’t have this sort of problem in Australia

Dude, the weapon in the first picture is used to fire smoke grenades or tear gas.

The second one has guys with M4s. 5.56 NATO, and probably fully automatic. And it looks like they have body armor on.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
She was then shot in the face, cowering behind a paper-board sign. Then the video cuts to the whole sqad at their debriefing where the commander gets everyone laughing and joking about it, and making fun of the woman.

Well, her selection of what to hide behind (a paper sign) is pretty funny.

Cover and concealment are two different things. She obviously doesn't know the difference. Law of intensity: In the future, she will.

reply to post by jerico65


Thank you, I knew they were non lethal weapons, but I wasn't sure in what form they took. Not much of a weapons buff myself.

Fear,intimidation and overwhelming force.Dressed as stormtroopers moving in mass almost in formation.Shooting the citizenry with anominity.
Laughing at thier victum as they gloat over thier victory of robbing her right to assemble and right to free speach.
Constitutional Opposition Proponents That's what COP should stand for!!

reply to post by jerico65

Well, her selection of what to hide behind (a paper sign) is pretty funny.

Would you still think it was funny if that round had gone through her eye and lodged in her brain? :shk:

reply to post by jackinthebox


Here's my problem, she's shot in the leg and then starts antagonising the police. Then when they repeatedly fire at her, she is told to make sure to provde good angles for the camera. It's probably just me, but that sounds bad, sounds like she deliberately saught out this scenario, It reminds me of this kid that continued to antagonise me to hit him when I was in High School, knowing I'd get in trouble if I did. I tried getting the teacher to get him off my back, but there was a limit to what he could do. Eventually I faked a swing at him with a broom and he ducked into it and ran for the teacher. I'm going to do some research on the lady and see if there's more on her.

reply to post by RuneSpider


If she was not in violation of the law, then the police were abusing their authority and could have killed her. Plain and simple.

There was no reason for them to fire rubber bullets anyway. It's not like there was a surging crowd throwing rocks or anything. They shot the woman in the back.

I really don't see how she was antagonizing the police either. It's not like she was saying, "I'm not moving unless you shoot me you pigs!"

reply to post by jackinthebox
Ok, I looked over the video again, turned the sound up higher and listened harder. To my ears, she still sounds like she's a bit antagonising, but I can also see that it porbably doesn't sound that way to others. Not saying anything special, I'm taking a look at it from another point of view and getting what you mean. That said, i still think there is more to this story, especially as it's from a news broadcast. It's been spun at osme point.

reply to post by RuneSpider


I would be willing to accept that there were more to the story, if I saw that in fact there were more to the story. But even if she was notorious for standing up for our rights, I hardly find that reason enough to shoot the woman in the back, or in the face for that matter. It would certainly explain it better, but I fail to see how such action could be justified. She posed no physical danger, yet potentially lethal force was used against her. Then the police laugh about harming an unarmed civilian as if it were a fumble in a football game.



[edit on 4/4/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Well, since feelings mean so much on this site, my gut tells me there is more to this story. The way the events are played out seems wrong. At the moment, I haven't been able to actually start looking up on the lady, so I can't say anything about her.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by dave420

 

Um, no. Doing work for the National Park Service does not make one a Federal employee. Nor does it mean the person or persons are responsible for protecting anything.

[edit on 4/2/0808 by jackinthebox]

Ummm, yes it does.

If you work for the National Park Service you are a Federal Employee, or a federal contractor. In both cases you work for the government.

In fact they have one of the best federal jobs I have seen. Many even get their own houses included on site.