It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Urban Combat The Petraeus Way

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You know if they start calling people "insurgents" people are actually going to start acting more like them.

I don't particularly like where this is going.


What's not to like?

Personally I think if you're somebody like a street-thug/gangbanger, robbing a 7-11 or dealing coc aine in close proximity to a school, etc?

You SHOULD be labeled an insurgent.

To me, an insurgent is just another word for hardcore criminal.




posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One
Okay. Take the following situation into consideration.

Me and a coworker were pulling security for an apartment complex as courtesy officers. We took it upon ourselves to begin stopping vehicles and talking to the occupants of said vehicles, asking for them to show ID, and state their business for being on the property. We only did this with people who didn't live in the apartments or if they were just somebody we did not recognize off the bat.

The apartment complex happened to be a hot-bed for peddling of illegal narcotics as well as other various acts of an illegal/devious nature.

At a certain point in time the local police department showed up and questioned me and my coworker about 1) complaints against both of us in regards to impersonating police officers (at the time we weren't police, we were private security contractors) , 2) illegal searches, as well as 3) other civil-rights violations.

I found that kinda 'strange' because the local police did those things (illegal searches, civil-rights violations) all the time! Yet they had the nerve to come out and harass us about it.

And I had never had a single police officer give me problems like that until that very day. But local PD doesn't like security officers, however the local sheriff's dept does.

(At one point we stopped a vehicle which had a passenger with a warrant for their arrest, the charge was for a hit & run. That person was let go because the police didn't want to go through all the trouble of extraditing said person back to the county they were from.)

Long story short. Me and my coworker decided that police had to have been out there at the apartments for a good reason other than civil-rights violations. And we felt that it was because someone within said police dept was involved in the drug trade taking place within those apartments. And so therefore police were out there running a protection racket behind the scenes. And they came out there to distract me and my colleague while the drug dealers did their business and left w/o getting caught.


The job of a uniformed security guard is to "observe and report", not to get involved... its not your job to arrest drug dealers or enforce the law because, quite simply, guards are not trained or authorized to do so... which is probably why you drew the attention of the local sworn who have a DUTY to perform. Part of that duty is to protect people from over zealous security.

I used ran across many guards who were eager and well meaning, but just didn't understand their role and it got them arrested or seriously hurt. The best thing a guard can do if they want to "help"; If you observe a drug deal / other crime, take copious mental notes and report it..

As far a general whatever, he's a war fighter not a police officer.. he should stick to what he knows best; killing people in illegal wars. There is already an "us versus them" atmosphere between the populace and gendarme.. treating people like insurgents would further fracture and already tenuous relationship.

If you are in law enforcement that you should already know how fast a bar full of happy go lucky bar stool urchins will turn into an angry mob ready to take out their frustrations on you... As it is they dont see you checking for adulterated liquor as protecting them from getting ripped off or sick.. you're harassing their friend joe the bartender... start assuming most everyone is an insurgent rather than a law abiding innocent citizen.. and the police will be even more of an occupation force than they already are.

Since general disaster isn't a cop, he's not remotely aware of just how ####ed up the system is.. it's a freak'n mess that needs to be overhauled completely. Start with ending the war on plants (drugs) in its current form; its a failure that puts non violent people behind bars. Tuning up the police to be military like, is looking in the wrong direction.

..and btw, non felony out of county warrants are generally a waste of time. And agency rivalries will never go away.. around here the the LA Sheriffs (about 9,000) seriously clown LAPD (about 8,000) aka "LA pee-wee" or "rapid la-pid".. mocking their primadonna attitudes despite having stupid low hiring standards / ridiculously slow response times. Not only that LAPD & CHP ( cant handle police work) are notorious for not extending professional courtesy and seriously disliked in some circles... it is what it is.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One
What's not to like?

Personally I think if you're somebody like a street-thug/gangbanger, robbing a 7-11 or dealing coc aine in close proximity to a school, etc?

You SHOULD be labeled an insurgent.

To me, an insurgent is just another word for hardcore criminal.


Cocaine used to be legal and guess what -- no street thugs selling it at all. No illegal weapons being wielded by coke dealers, no huge black market economies of trillions of dollars, NONE of that. It is a DIRECT result of making it illegal, just like making alcohol illegal led to insane amounts of gang activity, Al Capone and the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and all of that, that led to prohibition's quick repeal. We were lucky that coke wasn't as popular as alcohol, and that potheads are too stoned to care.

Yeah, start doing that, and then see who the street thugs and crack dealers start attacking. It won't just be each other any more. One good thing that will come of it will be that black-on-black crime will drop significantly, I can predict that much. Well, except that black people also serve as police and military...

You will see more police and military shot down in cold blood on the streets. Total guerrilla warfare. If you bring it to them, that's what both sides will get. Drug war in Mexico is a good modern example. They don't mess around, they've killed the president's advisors and family members. Why? Because Mexico has tried bringing a real war to them. So that's exactly what both parties got. One side escalates, so does the other. Equal and opposite reactions. It's almost physics.

Like Vietnam, you can walk past the enemy on the street and have no idea he's going to be the one to kill you an hour later. But in many cases -- he will.


But if that's what you want, if you want to support this mentality, go ahead, and see where it takes you.

Remember that people will reflect the way you treat them back at YOU.

[edit on 20-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Here's my 8 point plan for dealing with 4 star psychotics
1 - strip off their stars
2 - refer said officer to mental health counseling for egomaniacal delusional behaviors
3 - follow up with appropriate drug treatment and/or incarceration

Whoops! only 3 points, my bad.



[edit on 20-12-2009 by Asktheanimals]



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu
The job of a uniformed security guard is to "observe and report", not to get involved... its not your job to arrest drug dealers or enforce the law because, quite simply, guards are not trained or authorized to do so... which is probably why you drew the attention of the local sworn who have a DUTY to perform. Part of that duty is to protect people from over zealous security.


The basic foundation of a uniformed security guard's duty is observe and report. True. However in some instances, said officer can go somewhat beyond that particular scope of their capacity and be a little more 'hands-on' or 'pro-active' in their function as a uniformed public servant. (In Texas. A security guard/officer is considered a uniformed public servant. If somebody puts their hands on one of us? They get charged with felony assault.) Provided that they have the necessary training or are under the direction of an officer with said necessary training. And provided that they are going about their duties according to client's orders.

At one apartment complex we were contracted to. The apartment management delegated their authority to us. And we had the authorization to go into any particular person's apartment (w/o a search warrant from police), provided that a) we knew for sure there was something illegal taking place inside the apartment that was detrimental to standards set forth by the community. OR b) someone inside said apartment was in danger (ie: dude beating his woman,, or someone with medical issues was passed out inside the apartment and paramedics needed to get to them.)

Now when it comes down to entering a person's apartment for something illegal that was taking place. (ie: somebody was tampering with or breaking into vehicles, and that person sought refuge and was let in to somebody's apartment.) It's not like we can just go up and kick down the door and go in like it was nothing. That's not how it works. First we knock on the door. Somebody answers the door. We say "Security Officer" or "Courtesy Officer" and "we need to go inside your apartment". Person who answers the door were to say "F*** off! You have no business in my apartment." It wouldn't matter because according to the lease they signed, any member of the apartment complex staff can enter their apartment for whatever reason deemed necessary.

AND in some instances. Illegal activity taking place on a property can be overlooked if the client instructs us to do so.

We were contracted to a strip-club. In the parking lot of said strip club there were people who dealt marijuana. The strip-club owner didn't have a problem with marijuana. (In fact some of the staff of said strip-club would hang around out back after closing time and have some.) We had orders from the club-management to allow the dealing of marijuana (or just about any other type of narcotic as long as we didn't see it) to take place, provided they weren't actually CONSUMING said narcotic in the parking lot in plain view of everyone.



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ausar
you say it would make your job easier;
you wouldn't be doing the same thing you do now.?

you fail to realize that the attacks you mentioned were the cause of malfeasance on the part of the officiating contracted citizens (LEO's as you put it). i think you got lost somewhere and forgot what being a LEO is all about.


Actually I would be doing just about the same thing I do now. However if something were to happen up in congress, say involving the legalization of marijuana? I won't have to worry about busting people for marijuana possession. And instead, focus my attention on something more important.

If we would do a better job at curtailing illegal immigrants? I wouldn't have to waste my time brushing up on my Spanish. (Not that I mind. I am a linguist. I know multiple languages.) But not everyone you come across who works in this business is going to have the patience to learn another language. Now I did have a criminal justice professor who said if it were up to him? He'd make it a requirement for every police officer to be fluent in Spanish. I agree with this notion and at the same time I don't. Reason why I don't agree is that native language of America is English and if someone doesn't speak it they probably shouldn't be here in the first place. However I agree because we got a lot of Spanish Speakers in the United States. And one of the main points of counterinsurgency is having a substantial knowledge in language and culture. So having more Spanish-speaking uniformed public servants is a plus.

But majority of the time you deal with foreigners. Chances are they may not be legal citizens. And that's another thing that needs attention. Illegal immigration. I'll talk more about that in a later post.

Also. If we had more law-abiding citizens out there with concealed handgun permits. Combined with more restrictions lifted off of firearms possession and purchasing. That would make my job easier as well. Places where there is less gun-control is a place with a significantly lower crime-rate. Not to mention if they wouldn't make it illegal for me to carry more than ONE handgun on my person. I feel that cops, and security officers, and any other armed public servant should be allowed to carry a second firearm (concealed) on their person where it can be reached with the left hand. So that way if a) their shooting hand gets injured, they can easily reach for their concealed firearm with their left hand. b) if a perp managed to take their primary firearm away, officer still has their concealed back up to shoot said perp before they can cause any further harm to anybody around them. But it's illegal for an armed uniformed public servant to carry more than one firearm. And it's illegal for said public servant to NOT carry it out in the open.

Also I'd like for whoever gets voted as the next President in the 2012 presidential election to appoint Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as attorney general. Or if not have him appointed as director of dept of homeland security.


Originally posted by GovtFlu

Since general disaster isn't a cop, he's not remotely aware of just how ####ed up the system is.. it's a freak'n mess that needs to be overhauled completely. Start with ending the war on plants (drugs) in its current form; its a failure that puts non violent people behind bars. Tuning up the police to be military like, is looking in the wrong direction.



You do understand that a police force is a 'paramilitary' force. Correct? Any way you slice it. Doesn't matter. Food for thought.

(BTW: Sorry for the double post.)

[edit on 12/20/09 by Marked One]

[edit on 12/20/09 by Marked One]

[edit on 12/20/09 by Marked One]



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One

Originally posted by GovtFlu
The job of a uniformed security guard is to "observe and report", not to get involved... its not your job to arrest drug dealers or enforce the law because, quite simply, guards are not trained or authorized to do so... which is probably why you drew the attention of the local sworn who have a DUTY to perform. Part of that duty is to protect people from over zealous security.


The basic foundation of a uniformed security guard's duty is observe and report. True. However in some instances, said officer can go somewhat beyond that particular scope of their capacity and be a little more 'hands-on' or 'pro-active' in their function as a uniformed public servant. (In Texas. A security guard/officer is considered a uniformed public servant. If somebody puts their hands on one of us? They get charged with felony assault.) Provided that they have the necessary training or are under the direction of an officer with said necessary training. And provided that they are going about their duties according to client's orders.

((snip))


So you understand that you are biased, hired to guard someones private interests.. by perhaps presenting the color of authority and the ability to notify the police... as a deterrent type of thing... not to enforce all laws.

If your paycheck issuer advises you to ignore certain minor chicken-spackle non violent crimes, you do so... if I liked getting paid I would too. While I agree enforcing laws re: weed is a waste of time for police or anyone, unfortunately the misguided local .gov wouldn't see over looking what they consider heinous crime as serving the public good, or acting as a good public servant.. at least I don't imagine they would.

If you want to do "hands on" security, go for it, just remember sworn officers usually enjoy a specific bill of rights (in Calif it's AB301 rights) that non sworn do not.

Frankly, I don't see how general dick tracys' opinion would affect how private security operates since you're not crime fighters.. more like private crime deterrents.

Police Officers Bill of Rights
CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3300-3311
www.slopoa.com...



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu[/i
Frankly, I don't see how general dick tracys' opinion would affect how private security operates since you're not crime fighters.. more like private crime deterrents.


Oh? What's that? We're NOT crime fighters? If a security officer happens to be in a convenience store buying fuel, snacks or a drink, cigarettes or a scratch-off lottery ticket, etc on their way to or from work or something of that nature and a masked gunman happens to walk inside the store and try to rob it? Guess what--as an armed security officer YOU have the right to draw your side-arm and open fire upon the gunman and potentially kill him/her. No questions asked.

Something similar happened to me. One night I was returning to my post (at an apartment complex) after I ducked out briefly to refuel my vehicle. On my way driving back I happened to come across a scene of an accident involving a vehicle that crashed into someone's fence, plowing it's way into their back yard, causing extensive amounts of damage to that person's property. The people that emerged from the house looked pretty pissed off. The guy in the SUV that crashed (who was with two other guys) was trying to get away. He almost did if it weren't for the fact that I just happened to be passing through. I immediately stopped and dismounted from my vehicle. I walked over to where one of the people from inside the house was standing, identified myself, and they asked for my help. I said "No problem. I can detain the driver and keep them there until police arrived." While the police were called and were on their way to the scene, I took it upon myself to extract the driver of the SUV and handcuff him. The other two guys got scared and ran off down the street (turns out they happened to live less than two blocks away). Police got there within a matter of minutes and arrested the guy for driving under the influence of alcohol, private property damage, and I don't know what else. Before the police took the guy in they kindly put their handcuffs on the guy and took mine off him and handed them back to me. (BTW: The guy was fat with stubby arms like that of a tyrannosaurus rex. lol. So it took two pairs of handcuffs to restrain the guy without injuring his arms and wrists.) After everything was said and done the people from the house thanked me and one of the police officers I talked to about the incident shook my hand and said "stay safe, brother" right before I left.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Being a current LEO I will say this plan really has NO place in "fighting" crime wihin the US. It would cause more problems then its worth. The idea of "kickin @@@ and taken names" is a good one and that should happen when dealing with some of the scum that walks these streets, but overall the overhall needed isn't with how we fight crime, it's how the JUSTICE system gets fixed.

Laws and the people who write them are the first major issue. I have my Georgia Criminal Code book for 2010, it sits in my patrol car and is about 4" thick. Now granted there is a lot of other crap in there but if you take out these three sections:

GA Crimes Code
GA Traffic Law
GA Juvenile/Family Law

these three sections make up about 75% of the book. So they need to reevaluate LAWS in general in all states. Best part is out of ALL those laws, I have a cheat sheet/guide I use that has about 80 offenses on it...outside of those 80 I will never arrest or give a citation for the other crap.

Secondly is the PISS POOR job our Court system does. You gotta fix these leaks before taking on anymore water.

Until these two things get a MAJOR overhaul, it doesn't matter what WE as LEO's and the People do to combat anything crime related....we will not succeed.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Wow and when they said the bull# insanity of the coked out Neo-Con crusades would come home and subvert out liberty at home, I just laughed. I guess now that Americans can be labeled as insurgents and crime can be fought like it is in Iraq, we as citizens should just join hands and praise our protectors from saving us from ourselves.

But seriously though, who the # are you to call another American an insurgent? I really do not believe cops should get any more power than absolutely necessary. Thanks to the bull# drug war we already seen a rapid militarization of the police force which has only served to kill many innocent people and turn the police into a virtual gang of terror on the streets. Now you want to implement Iraqi tactics on the street of America? Boo-hoo some cops get gunned down, it's not an attempt to overthrow the government. It's just some cops getting gunned down. Tragic, sure but by no means should the cops get any more power.

And where are these EPIC VIOLENT SURGES OF CRIMES happening? I haven't seen it in my city, I haven't seen much on the news. Why do you feel you deserve more power?

This is one of the more frightening threads I've seen on ATS. You want to fix the problems you're trying to address? Fix the economy, create jobs, and improve our god-forsaken education. Don't do it ass backwards and give the people you should be vigilant of more power. That's just going to # everyone in the end.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Oh... you're a rent a cop.
Nevermind disregard my rant as I thought your opinion actually mattered.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Laws and the people who write them are the first major issue. I have my Georgia Criminal Code book for 2010, it sits in my patrol car and is about 4" thick. Now granted there is a lot of other crap in there but if you take out these three sections:

GA Crimes Code
GA Traffic Law
GA Juvenile/Family Law

these three sections make up about 75% of the book. So they need to reevaluate LAWS in general in all states. Best part is out of ALL those laws, I have a cheat sheet/guide I use that has about 80 offenses on it...outside of those 80 I will never arrest or give a citation for the other crap.

Secondly is the PISS POOR job our Court system does. You gotta fix these leaks before taking on anymore water.

Until these two things get a MAJOR overhaul, it doesn't matter what WE as LEO's and the People do to combat anything crime related....we will not succeed.


S&F for u.

That's one of the points of the article. It involves 80% political action and 20% actual physical action.

Overhaul the judicial system in all aspects. Such as re-evaluate laws in general in all states.

One of the things it mentions is cutting off an insurgent group's resources.

One way that can be done in handling crime is legalizing marijuana. You legalize marijuana that cuts down drug-related violence significantly. Not to mention it frees up the jails of people who commit drug-related offenses involving marijuana.

This was done in the Netherlands. Marijuana was legalized. (I'm not a pot-smoker but I am in favor of marijuana-legalization). A police chief in Amsterdam was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera and asked about his personal insight into the concept.

He explained; "Say you have a potential drug-buyer going to a drug dealer to purchase weed. The drug-dealer is like; "Sure I have weed. But I also have coc aine, heroine, and methamphetamine. Would you like to try that as well?"

You eliminate a drug such as marijuana from the list of illegal narcotics. That paves the way to less violence and less incarceration. And not to mention keeps most people away from the more hardcore drugs.

Now coc aine, heroine, PCP, and methamphetamine etc. Those drugs need to remain illegal. I don't care what anyone says.

That same magazine where this article is from had a past article which explained the exact same thing. And one of the main points cited was: "We need to stop thinking in terms of throwing in the towel on our moral obligations and start thinking in terms of reducing crime in American streets."

Good place to start would be with legalizing marijuana.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic


If you're not going to pay attention and actually read the article. Then don't waste my time.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


You don't get the hilarity of a rent-a-cop reading Guns and Ammo and proclaiming on internet message board that he's in law enforcement? You also don't get the hilarity of this person proclaiming we need to give cops more power and we need to start cracking down on the citizenry through militarization means? Listen you have two choices here. Either go to police school and become real or visit a therapist and get some help for why you never made it. However, don't sit there and talk about subverting my liberties and the freedoms that make this country great based on your perspective of chasing skater kids at the food court. I mean seriously, do you not see how
you're coming off as right now?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by Marked One
 


You don't get the hilarity of a rent-a-cop reading Guns and Ammo and proclaiming on internet message board that he's in law enforcement? You also don't get the hilarity of this person proclaiming we need to give cops more power and we need to start cracking down on the citizenry through militarization means? Listen you have two choices here. Either go to police school and become real or visit a therapist and get some help for why you never made it. However, don't sit there and talk about subverting my liberties and the freedoms that make this country great based on your perspective of chasing skater kids at the food court. I mean seriously, do you not see how
you're coming off as right now?


Ohhhh...you think I CHASE skater kids at the food court? I don't give a crap about 'skater' kids. I never met a single 'skater' kid who didn't like me.

And as for 'going to police school'. I am doing that.

And one more thing...

Please explain how I am trying to 'subvert liberties and freedoms', genius?

Also. Please explain how I am 'trying to give more cops more power'.

Did you even read the damn article? Or did you just pretend to read it?

[edit on 1/20/10 by Marked One]

[edit on 1/20/10 by Marked One]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


By labeling other Americans as "insurgents" and speaking of bringing Iraqi conflict tactics to American streets. A lot of your notions are quite scary and speak of someone who has a serious fantasy life. I bet you're sitting there stroking a gun on your lap at this very moment as you read this. I think you're misconstruing personal issues for an overall world view that is quite authoritative and Orwellian. And honestly what right do you have to even say any of this? The only thing you're an authority on is directing lost tourists to the nearest Orange Julius.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by CuriousSkeptic]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
There seems to be a fundamental problem here that some of the higher ranking officers in our military don’t understand: the police and the military are not the same in intent or purpose. The fact that some in higher authority don’t see a distinction is truly disturbing.

America is not a military state. Police officers are, by their basic definition and intended powers, PEACE officers. In many local charters you will find them defined as such. That is, the police are officially charged and empowered with maintaining the PEACE. They are not there to ‘wage WAR on crime’ or other such rubbish. They are existent and empowered as such to make sure that stability and peaceful pursuits are facilitated and maintained. The armed forces are exactly the opposite: their sole purpose is to wage WAR upon an enemy. They are there to destroy our enemies. The police are not charged with destroying but maintaining. That is the core difference between the two.

If this idiot does not understand that distinction then God help us all.



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by Marked One
 


By labeling other Americans as "insurgents" and speaking of bringing Iraqi conflict tactics to American streets. A lot of your notions are quite scary and speak of someone who has a serious fantasy life. I bet you're sitting there stroking a gun on your lap at this very moment as you read this. I think you're misconstruing personal issues for an overall world view that is quite authoritative and Orwellian. And honestly what right do you have to even say any of this? The only thing you're an authority on is directing lost tourists to the nearest Orange Julius.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by CuriousSkeptic]



Fail troll.

You didn't answer my question. Where in the god***mned article does it say that Americans are being labeled insurgents? Stop believing infowars.com and stop sucking alex jones' ****. A lot of my notions are quite scary and speak of someone who has a serious fantasy life? Okay. So actually winning a major battle in the war on drugs by legalizing marijuana is scary? Reducing illegal immigration is scary? Overhauling the judicial system is scary? Taking more people with simple drug convictions (ie: marijuana) out of jail (and rehabilitating them, giving them education and a job) and thus making and leaving more room in the jail for people who are rapists, murderers, child molesters, terrorists, illegal immigrants, human traffickers, hardcore drug traffickers, etc. To be in jail.

WOW THAT IS SOOOO F****ING SCARY!!! OMG!!! LOL! LOL!

What right do I have to even say any of this? The right as a natural born American citizen, not just as a uniformed public servant, but as someone who pays taxes and has a concern for the safety and security of myself and my family as well as the safety and security of YOU AND YOUR FAMILY even if you think my only authority is directing lost tourists to the 'orange julius'. Whatever the f*** that is. Or whatever the f*** it is you think I am.

[edit on 1/21/10 by Marked One]



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
There seems to be a fundamental problem here that some of the higher ranking officers in our military don’t understand: the police and the military are not the same in intent or purpose. The fact that some in higher authority don’t see a distinction is truly disturbing.

America is not a military state. Police officers are, by their basic definition and intended powers, PEACE officers. In many local charters you will find them defined as such. That is, the police are officially charged and empowered with maintaining the PEACE. They are not there to ‘wage WAR on crime’ or other such rubbish. They are existent and empowered as such to make sure that stability and peaceful pursuits are facilitated and maintained. The armed forces are exactly the opposite: their sole purpose is to wage WAR upon an enemy. They are there to destroy our enemies. The police are not charged with destroying but maintaining. That is the core difference between the two.

If this idiot does not understand that distinction then God help us all.


Okay so you're saying that I want military personnel running the streets? When did I ever say I wanted military personnel running the streets. Personally I don't think we need military to supplement police. It's not that bad. Besides it wouldn't matter--lot of police are ex-military anyways. So what difference does it make?



posted on Jan, 20 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join