2nd amendment use in Ferguson

[CopperFouling]

Please define "militarization".

Are you talking about the tactics ? if so, what are "non-militarized" tactics for crowd control in times of a riot ?

Or the way they dress & are armed ? Would you feel better then if they had Smokey Bear hats on and used shotguns and tommy guns instead of modern rifles, and bulldozers instead of armored vehicles ? Would that make them look less militarized ?

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/martial-law-enforcement/

The federal government has been sending military equipment to local police for a while now. Rand Paul recently wrote about that trend in Time, if I recall correctly.

 

[johncantiusgarand]

Someone here (don't remember who) was suggesting that if the police with their riot gear couldn't effectively control the looting, then visibly armed citizens would do no better. I think it worth mentioning that troublemakers react differently to armed private citizens than they do to armed police. Ironically, although this latest unrest sprung from an alleged excessive use of force by a police officer, and protesters have been characterizing this excessive force as typical police behavior, most troublemakers suspect that police will exercise more restraint than armed private citizens will.

A visibly armed merchant guarding his store is more intimidating than a line of riot-gear festooned police officers, because people understand that police have standards of behavior concerning use of force. As much as they lament what they believe is a worsening of police behavior across the country, they really do expect that the police will exercise some restraint. That expectation emboldens the rioter who confronts police; he knows--or at least he thinks he knows--how far he can go before he'll get a deadly force response from them.

The response from an armed merchant defending his property is much more difficult to predict, since he isn't expected to be an expert on when deadly force is justified. Nor is his armed presence routine; he was already provoked to arms by the civil unrest, and no one really knows how much more provocation it will take for him to start shooting.

 

[Red Wind]

^Excellent post. Sound reasoning. The 1992 L.A. Rodney King riots are a case in point. Those mobs really feared the Korean shop owners armed with shotguns and more.

Nothing has changed in 22 years.

After Hurricane Andrew also in 1992 Homestead gunowners dissuaded a considerable number of looters by standing by with firearms.

 

[Nom de Forum]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/martial-law-enforcement/

The federal government has been sending military equipment to local police for a while now. Rand Paul recently wrote about that trend in Time, if I recall correctly.

It is a fairly clear indication something is wrong when the libertarian far right and liberal far left agree on a problem. Both sides are concerned with the militarization of the civil police. Does anyone not think "mall ninja syndrome" can't happen to Andy and Barney when you dress them up like killer commandos and give them state of the art military weaponry. I once watched a city cop respond to a burglary call with a Steyr AUG he pulled out of his trunk. He parked 200 feet from the home and proceeded to move as though he was involved in a MOUT situation with the expectation of taking fire. Anyone seeing him and not knowing what he was responding to would have thought all hell was going to break-out at any moment. Turned out the suspected burglar was a homeowner's daughter unexpectedly coming over to visit.

 

[itsa pain]

Please define "militarization".

Are you talking about the tactics ? if so, what are "non-militarized" tactics for crowd control in times of a riot ?

Or the way they dress & are armed ? Would you feel better then if they had Smokey Bear hats on and used shotguns and tommy guns instead of modern rifles, and bulldozers instead of armored vehicles ? Would that make them look less militarized ?

I generally have a big problem with overzealous use of police force; while I didn't support the political views of some Seattle protesters back in Bush times, I was outraged at some incidents of what was clearly excessive police action against peaceful protesters on US soil. But note the words "excessive" and "peaceful". The rioting, looting crowd is anything but. And I truly couldn't care less how the police looks. The problem here is not the police. It's that the police will be nowhere near when you really need it. Never, ever forget what happened in the New Orleans. If it wasn't for 2A, the people in Ferguson would have nothing to protect themselves with. Yes I fully understand that 2A is not about self-protection - but that's because in these times, the right to bear small arms for self protection was legal in England (and I believe in Colonies) under the Bill of Rights of 1689. I think it didn't even occur to them that at some time the government would ever want to restrict this basic freedom. They were trying to protect the right to bear arms as part of the organized fighting force - something that the Brits did try to take away.



As Americans, we also have the problem with violence that has historically been at much higher levels here than in the UK. Go 100 years back while both countries had no gun restrictions, or go 200 years back, the violent crime rates were significantly higher here at all times. It's just the way our society is, the by product of the way the US society was historically shaped. We need that layer of self protection. Although the UK seems to be changing, and not for the better.

Yeah you are right the police should have mini guns flame throwers and mini nukes. The best thing comes out of this is the bills being made up to strip the police of military equipment

 

[leadcounsel]

^Excellent post. Sound reasoning. The 1992 L.A. Rodney King riots are a case in point. Those mobs really feared the Korean shop owners armed with shotguns and more.

Nothing has changed in 22 years.

I would argue that a lot has changed. But I won't get into the politics and race relations which will draw an infraction and shut down the thread. But people are much more sophisticated today, everyone has a video camera, and the internet means that information can be shared by anyone instantly worldwide.

As far as guarding my PROPERTY (read - business store front with TVs, stereos, Nike shoes, and other insured and replaceable items) with lethal force - standing out front as a show of force, or hidden in the shadows lurking.... this all seems like a great recipe for disaster, a future criminal conviction in the cards. As they say, the best plans go to ruin when the fog of war kicks in, and the enemy gets a vote. What if your show of force doesn't deter unarmed teenage looters busting your plate glass windows and emptying your store. Are you prepared to keep your (presumably fuming temper at being robbed and vandalized) and not shoot out of anger? Lets say that someone has a gun and you shoot that person, but his gang of friends take their buddies gun and run off. The cameras show up and you've got a teenager dead in a pool of blood on your storefront sidewalk. All of his friends will say, "he was just walking by minding his own business..." And you'll be on trial for murder.

Someone else here or elsewhere pointed out that YOU as the property owner are linked to a physical address, and the looters and rioters are shadowy unidentifiable figures with masks, able to disappear into the night after shooting and looting. They can take shots, throw bricks, come in numbers of 20 chaotic people armed with pipes and bricks and knives and even guns. A person could quickly be overwhelmed, and overcome if he was unwilling to kill 20 people, for instance. I'm not prepared to kill ONE person over some property, and certainly not 20 people!

The optics of all of this are pretty bad.

If you're a single small business, hopefully your insurance will cover the loses. If not, hopefully the government will pay for the damages.

Now, having said that, if it's your home/residence, your families safety, etc. then the equation changes. Also if you have a community of businesses who will stand strong, set up a unified front and presence, with community support to back each other up so that it's a real show of defensive armed force... now that would be the best approach if you're going to try to defend...

 

[leadcounsel]

The militarized police force, fresh on the front lines with modern military equipment of the era, to combat crime.









Let's maintain some perspective- history is a good teacher.

In the 1930s the police carried "military grade" equipment. They could employ combat grade Thompson Submachine gun, the BAR .30-06 machine gun, and pump shotguns and sniper rifles. Nothing is new here. The modern law enforcement tactics are actually better, because they employ non-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc. to reduce casualties. The armor they wear and use on vehicles is for their safety because the population has become much more willing to use violence and riot...

 

[Nom de Forum]

The militarized police force, fresh on the front lines with modern military equipment of the era, to combat crime.









Let's maintain some perspective- history is a good teacher.

In the 1930s the police carried "military grade" equipment. They could employ combat grade Thompson Submachine gun, the BAR .30-06 machine gun, and pump shotguns and sniper rifles. Nothing is new here. The modern law enforcement tactics are actually better, because they employ non-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc. to reduce casualties. The armor they wear and use on vehicles is for their safety because the population has become much more willing to use violence and riot...

Anyone can google-fu some out of context photos but when there is no context provided with them they don't mean a thing. Your average Police department in the 1930's was not armed as your photos suggest. Even the biggest departments back then were not equipped as though they were ready for deployment to Iraq as many small town police departments are today. By the way, much of the military equipment you pictured from the 1930s was used primarily to intimidate protesting laborers and minorities. Very few criminals were apprehended using such equipment. Funny how the more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[BSA1]

We've established that true riots aren't covered by insurance*, so many business owners may be fearing for the sum of their resources and means of living a decent life --if that's not worth fighting or even dying for, what is?

The myth that started in the 1960’s and continues to this day is citizens are incapable of solving their own problems and protecting themselves and only professional police officers can do so. Watch early police shows like Adam 12, Dragnet and movies like Rio Bravo.

The police. And if they're being called on for what is essentially a military function -- to enforce martial law -- why wouldn't they need military gear and training?

The Military takes a oath to protect our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic by killing them.

The Police mission is to serve the community and are answerable to the citizens of the community for their actions.

Because it can create attitudes and policies like Pulaski County Sheriff Michael Gayer;

The MRAP has an added benefit, said Pulaski County Sheriff Michael Gayer, whose department also acquired one: "It's a lot more intimidating than a Dodge."

Even in Pulaski County, population 13,124, a more military approach to law enforcement is needed these days, Gayer suggested.

"The United States of America has become a war zone," he said. "There's violence in the workplace, there's violence in schools and there's violence in the streets. You are seeing police departments going to a semi-military format because of the threats we have to counteract. If driving a military vehicle is going to protect officers, then that's what I'm going to do."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ce-military-surplus-purchase-debate/10221551/

I agree with him on militarization of police... Excessive force on peaceful protesters is unacceptable, but when the rioters are throwing molotovs, smashing windows, and looting, the time for politeness is over.

If you're going to try to be a peaceful demonstrator during a riot, you assume risk of being confused for a rioter. Reason being its too easy for a rioter to go a street over and say "I didn't do nothin!" Then go right back to rioting.

Taking too long to eat at McDonalds also gets you arrested…

Then unarrested.

Your 1st Amendment Rights also go out the window by the Police.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/08/reporters-arrested-in-ferguson-193914.html

As far as guarding my PROPERTY (read - business store front with TVs, stereos, Nike shoes, and other insured and replaceable items) with lethal force - standing out front as a show of force, or hidden in the shadows lurking.... this all seems like a great recipe for disaster, a future criminal conviction in the cards... What if your show of force doesn't deter unarmed teenage looters busting your plate glass windows and emptying your store. Are you prepared to keep your (presumably fuming temper at being robbed and vandalized) and not shoot out of anger? Lets say that someone has a gun and you shoot that person, but his gang of friends take their buddies gun and run off…And you'll be on trial for murder.

Not out of anger but out of fear. Read my thread “Against a mob; The Ossian Sweet Case.”

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=759227

The militarized police force, fresh on the front lines with modern military equipment of the era, to combat crime. Let's maintain some perspective- history is a good teacher

You mean like the Passage of the National Firearms Act in 1935?

Or the Chicago Police Riot August 28, 1968 during the 1968 Democratic Convention?

http://worldhistoryproject.org/1968/8/28/police-riot-at-the-democratic-national-convention

Or the creation of the "Police Industrial Complex"

"The main argument for the military equipment is officer safety…

It seems hard to refute. Who doesn't want cops to be safe? But Peter Kraska, author of numerous studies, including "Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond: Making Sense of American Paramilitary Policing," said it's more complicated than that.

"The problem with that is, it's a real slippery slope and it can become unreasonable," said Kraska, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University's School of Justice Studies. "A traffic stop is extremely dangerous for the police. In a democratic society, though, we wouldn't want to see those traffic stops or even 25 percent of those traffic stops handled by a SWAT team.

"If what you mean by being cautious (to protect officers) is increasingly militarize, that doesn't necessarily result in safe outcomes. In fact, it can escalate risky situations instead of deescalate them.

If an agency has an MRAP, he said, it might feel it needs to use the vehicle, increasing the number of deployments by its SWAT team. That means broadening the situations an agency defines as being in need of a SWAT team."

Radley Balko, author of "The Rise of the Warrior Cop," wrote that Department of Homeland Security grants to law enforcement have also fueled militarization, and that military contractors are marketing to police.

"A new industry appears to be emerging just to convert those grants into battle-grade gear," Balko wrote. "That means we'll soon have powerful private interests, funded by government grants, who will lobby for more government grants to pay for further militarization — a police industrial complex."


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ce-military-surplus-purchase-debate/10221551/

 

[barnbwt]

"The militarized police force, fresh on the front lines with modern military equipment of the era, to combat crime."
Do we really want to go down the rabbit hole of questionable gangland-era police tactics..? Also, Thompsons and BARs were seen as a shocking display of Police largess at the time, as well. Seen how infrequently they were used, I'm inclined to agree (how else would that town in Milwaukee or wherever have had 12 near-mint registered Thompsons to surplus?)

We all know the Thompsons sought by police were as wildly unnecessary then, as they would be today (seeing how then, as now, machineguns are a vanishingly small factor on 'front lines' of law enforcement). But those big bad scawy men like Dillenger and Barrow were trumped up as posing a threat to every God-fearing man, woman, and child, and people clamored for them to obtain anything they wanted, using whatever tactics necessary (wholesale slaughter of gangsters, anyone?) to get whatever they said the job was, done. When we know now that all along, the rise in gang violence was due to police enforcement of moronic contraband laws in the first place.

Look at the 'capture' of Bonnie & Clyde and tell me that's anything but an ambush & kill zone; military tactics, not police tactics.

The reason for the modernization of police forces in the 30's was growing civil unrest amid Depression deprivation (why else do you think thousands of young, jobless men were shipped out into the hinterlands where they could neither hear nor be heard?). Authorities had a very real fear of bread riots and anarchists/revolutionaries, and wanted to be ready. Gangsters, who were as largely fictitious a threat then as now, were the boogeyman invented to justify the new equipment, tactics, and funding. Starting to sound familiar, isn't it?

Stuff like the Bonus Army protests were a serious worry to even federal officials. Hopefully our fearless leaders learned some history and won't try to screw over returning Iraqistan vets this go-around.

TCB

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The sheriff's department in a county south of me just purchased one of those armored vehicles($2,500.00 and some paperwork). It has reportedly been 'de-milled'. It's intended purpose is to protect the sheriff's personnel on missions, and for rescue missions during floods, etc.

Here is the fallacy I see with this: It being demilitarized, of what good will it be when the deputies will have to get out of the vehicle to perform their duties? Just driving it through the middle of a riot won't help one bit, and will likely be painted with graffiti before it reaches the other side of a riot.

You're back to the basics of defending you and yours on the street. It is quite clear to me that the rioters are not letting this timely(for them) crisis go to waste, and the only effective means of quashing this looting spree is not with hulking ineffective behemoths and police in riot/SWAT gear but with people standing their ground protecting their means of existence. The Second Amendment protects the means to do that.

Woody

 

[Nom de Forum]

BSA1 and barnbwt you nailed it! I had hoped in my lifetime the vast majority would finally stop letting themselves be deceived by fear of imaginary bogeymen that are created to get more of their money for the greedy and protect the power of the powerful.

BSA1 -

If an agency has an MRAP, he said, it might feel it needs to use the vehicle, increasing the number of deployments by its SWAT team. That means broadening the situations an agency defines as being in need of a SWAT team."

It is my understanding that much of this equipment they receive for free requires them to use it within on year or lose it.

barnbwt -

Authorities had a very real fear of bread riots and anarchists/revolutionaries, and wanted to be ready.

Nothing has changed in the attitude of the "Authorities" and for the first time since the 1930's many people who always considered themselves to be part of a thriving middle class have real and realistic fears they could end up in the modern version of a breadline.

 

[Red Wind]

You're back to the basics of defending you and yours on the street. It is quite clear to me that the rioters are not letting this timely(for them) crisis go to waste, and the only effective means of quashing this looting spree is not with hulking ineffective behemoths and police in riot/SWAT gear but with people standing their ground protecting their means of existence. The Second Amendment protects the means to do that.

Good points,Woody. This is what I meant when I said "nothing has changed in the past 22 years." My post was pointing towards the men and women of Los Angeles and Homestead,Florida, who stood by their homes and business,armed against rioters and looters, just as many people of Ferguson,Missouri are doing today.

The advances in electronics since 1992 are a given. Sophistication,not so much!

 

[CopperFouling]

The militarized police force, fresh on the front lines with modern military equipment of the era, to combat crime.

Let's maintain some perspective- history is a good teacher.

In the 1930s the police carried "military grade" equipment. They could employ combat grade Thompson Submachine gun, the BAR .30-06 machine gun, and pump shotguns and sniper rifles. Nothing is new here.

Leadcounsel, I generally respect your posts, but I respectfully disagree with some aspects of your post. First, we don't know how many police departments had access to Thompson submachine guns nor how often they were deployed, whereas we do know that many departments, including many small municipalities with little apparent need, have access to, say, MRAPs and SWAT teams and use them.

The modern law enforcement tactics are actually better, because they employ non-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc. to reduce casualties.

For some interesting perspective (from 2010, nonetheless) on nonlethal weapons, check this essay out: http://harpers.org/archive/2010/03/the-soft-kill-solution/

P.S. The use of tear gas, being a chemical weapon is banned in international warfare under the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, the citizens of this country have no such protection.

The armor they wear and use on vehicles is for their safety because the population has become much more willing to use violence and riot...

I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. The second half of the nineteenth century and early parts of the twentieth century, for comparison, featured a number of violent riots (e.g. the Haymarket Riot and the Ludlow Massacre) with conflicts arising from industrialization and racism, to say nothing of the violence and unrest of the 1960s and 1970s. And given the dramatic decrease in violent crime since the 1980s, I don't think we can say that people now are "much more willing to use violence and riot."

Let's maintain some perspective- history is a good teacher.

I totally agree with you on this statement, so I am going to steal your tactic of posting pictures to consider how people in the past also committed mass acts of violence. As we think historically, consider these violent criminals who destroyed private property:

I'm out. I hope that the situation in Ferguson reaches a peaceful conclusion.

 

[pezo]

I think the media sensationalizing the fergusen riots like entertainment is at fault. Our leftist politicians parading it for the November elections also. Otherwise it would be nothing. Just local mumbo jumbo. And of course armed citizens in fear pose more of a risk to bad guys and looters than politically correct trained law enforcement professionals. The former may use force more abruptly (whether right or wrong, sometimes). A scared armed citizen is more dangerous to a criminal than a just doing his job law officer.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I think the media sensationalizing the fergusen riots like entertainment is at fault. Our leftist politicians parading it for the November elections also. Otherwise it would be nothing. Just local mumbo jumbo. And of course armed citizens in fear pose more of a risk to bad guys and looters than politically correct trained law enforcement professionals. The former may use force more abruptly (whether right or wrong, sometimes). A scared armed citizen is more dangerous to a criminal than a just doing his job law officer.

Don't doubt for a minute that politicians on the right will not also exploit the events Fergusen for the November elections. What you can be sure of is that both sides will exploit the situation with little regard what is best for anyone other than themselves.

 

[zxcvbob]

As far as guarding my PROPERTY (read - business store front with TVs, stereos, Nike shoes, and other insured and replaceable items) with lethal force - standing out front as a show of force, or hidden in the shadows lurking.... this all seems like a great recipe for disaster, a future criminal conviction in the cards. As they say, the best plans go to ruin when the fog of war kicks in, and the enemy gets a vote. What if your show of force doesn't deter unarmed teenage looters busting your plate glass windows and emptying your store. Are you prepared to keep your (presumably fuming temper at being robbed and vandalized) and not shoot out of anger? Lets say that someone has a gun and you shoot that person, but his gang of friends take their buddies gun and run off. The cameras show up and you've got a teenager dead in a pool of blood on your storefront sidewalk. All of his friends will say, "he was just walking by minding his own business..." And you'll be on trial for murder.

You are there because the store is yours and you have a right to be there. You have a gun because it's your right to have it, and prudent. You shoot the looters not to defend your property but to defend yourself. (one really should rehearse this, in case he has to shoot an entire mob)

 

[leadcounsel]

P.S. The use of tear gas, being a chemical weapon is banned in international warfare under the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, the citizens of this country have no such protection.

There are reasons for this - to prevent misconceptions of chemical weapons being used.

 

[barnbwt]

"The armor they wear and use on vehicles is for their safety because the population has become much more willing to use violence and riot..."

That is some Grade A Bull right there. Crime is at historic lows, and while we are in an economically 'stressed' period, we are far, far, far removed from bread riots, lynchings, and real rebellion like we've had in our distant past. Our modern society is so 'civilized' compared to any point in history anywhere as to be practically domesticated. We even have a contingent of people across the globe who don't believe in the concept of self-defense

TCB

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

"P.S. The use of tear gas, being a chemical weapon is banned in international warfare under the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, the citizens of this country have no such protection."

Because tear gas is SO much worse than being gunned down. Or beaten.




Riot control agents including tear gas and pepper spray are banned in international warfare under both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The CWC defines chemical weapons as “munitions and devices that are designed to cause death or other harm through toxic chemicals” that lead to “death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.” While tear gas and pepper spray, under international law, are banned as a “method of warfare”, there are no restrictions to their domestic use as a “riot control agent.” According to the CWC, “riot control agents” are any chemicals which are not specifically listed in their list of prohibited chemicals and that can cause in humans rapid “sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.” Under Article II Section 9 of the CWC, the use of such chemicals for “law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes” is not prohibited under the Convention.


So, once again, those in the media are deliberately misleading people.

Shocker.


And the above quotes came from this site:

http://facingteargas.org/bp/35/chemical-weapons-convention

Which is, no surprise given the name of their web site, against the use of tear gas:

"We believe that tear gas is a weapon of war against the people. We believe that tear gas remains a chemical weapons whether it is used on a battlefield or in the city streets. It has hurt and killed people globally as a part of government crackdowns on popular dissent, as ever-increasingly militarized police forces continue to bring the battle home. Whether the signatories of the CWC agree, we know that tear gas is a method of warfare."

Funny how they focus on tear gas as a "weapon of war", when all these conventions really do is make war itself more "acceptable" and "palatable".

 

[itsa pain]

The militarized police force, fresh on the front lines with modern military equipment of the era, to combat crime.









Let's maintain some perspective- history is a good teacher.

In the 1930s the police carried "military grade" equipment. They could employ combat grade Thompson Submachine gun, the BAR .30-06 machine gun, and pump shotguns and sniper rifles. Nothing is new here. The modern law enforcement tactics are actually better, because they employ non-lethal weapons like tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, etc. to reduce casualties. The armor they wear and use on vehicles is for their safety because the population has become much more willing to use violence and riot...

yes and any citizen could also buy the BAR or sub machine gun in a hardware store

 

[itsa pain]

"The armor they wear and use on vehicles is for their safety because the population has become much more willing to use violence and riot..."

That is some Grade A Bull right there. Crime is at historic lows, and while we are in an economically 'stressed' period, we are far, far, far removed from bread riots, lynchings, and real rebellion like we've had in our distant past. Our modern society is so 'civilized' compared to any point in history anywhere as to be practically domesticated. We even have a contingent of people across the globe who don't believe in the concept of self-defense

TCB

yes and the lower crime drops the more military surplus they get.

 

[TomJ]

"There are no police"

I'm not sure who's makes the decision to have police withdraw from areas where rioting takes place, but it's happening in Ferguson, per the attached article, and it happened in L.A. If you have the option of leaving the area, that's obviously the best solution. For those who can't leave for whatever reason, not protecting themselves seems naive and irresponsible.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/1...e-owners-guard-businesses-with-own-guns-lack/

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It seems the police et al wish to abandon(surrender) that part of town and wait until there is nothing left to loot and everyone goes home. That might not work out so well for them. There are other parts of town ripe for the picking. This makes bearing your arms to be able to defend yourself, family, and livelihood all the more appropriate and pertinent.

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights were there to deter? B.E.Wood

 

[leadcounsel]

To keep this on point with the OP, these residents are buying up guns because they are in fear, and many are finally realizing the importance of the 2A. Note it is times like this that also remind us that waiting periods to buy guns are bad policy.

To discuss the whole rioting versus police.... let's remember that the police are often hamstrung and cannot protect everyone. People should arm themselves to protect themselves from violence. It's not just riots like this, but it's a good general life principle.

Armed civilians guarding a business:

The police can quickly be outnumber, politically impotent, or withdraw for their own safety - leaving residents on their own.

We have already seen/heard many reports of serious personal and property crimes. Some innocent people have been shot by criminals. Many businesses burned or looted. Lots of property crimes, including overturned police cars. Mobs are very dangerous.

Why do police need "military gear" and "look like the military"? Because protesters now act like terrorists.







While a person has a right to peacefully protest - does anyone here actually support this or ANY protests you've seen in your life? Aren't they overwhelmingly 1) nonsense, 2) destructive to businesses and residents, 3) cost taxpayers millions of dollars, 4) result in significant criminal activity such as assaults, drugs, vandalism...? Have there been any legitimate protests on US soil in our lifetimes that did not turn into rioting and looting?

All this concern about a militarized police force is largely nonsense. They have always had lethal weapons. Now they simply use less than lethal weapons and have armored vehicles - which serve to de-escalate violence. Heck, Wells Fargo went from state coaches with armed guys riding "shotgun" to Armored Vehicles with armed guys riding "shotgun." Where is the outrage?

The police used firehoses to disperse crowds in decades past. Now they use other less than lethal devises. Big deal.

Police are generally quite restrained, use less than lethal force, and the show of force is always to de-escalate violence. The police have always had military equipment. In the 1930s-50s, the police adopted the Thompson submachine gun and the .3006 Browning Auto Rifle (BAR) to combat crime. They also had scoped hunting rifles and lethal shotguns. Big deal. It's no secret cops have guns. Now they just have better armor to protect them. I take little quarrel with that. As long as they are restrained what's the issue? My only real concern is the increase in violent no-knock raids, which I feel are unlawful.

General principle in life: If you don't want to get shot or arrested, don't attack cops or commit serious and dangerous crimes... follow that simple advice and your life will be quite tranquil.

Now, if the police really do become tyrants, we should raise this issue.

But given the fact that a few thousand poorly equipped, illiterate and uneducated Taliban can drag the United States through a 12 year stalemate - I'm quite confident if the day ever came for Americans to really stand up and be counted, 100 million educated, organized, and well-equipped gun owners would do just fine, MRAPs or no MRAPs.

In the meantime, the way I see it is that the LEO simply are in a lose-lose situation.

If they ignore these urban areas and don't patrol or respond to crime - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If they patrol and make arrests and defend themselves and shoot violent people - they are called names which I can't repeat here.
If there is a riot and the police turn up to stop rioting - they are militarized and called names which I can't repeat here..
If they use less-then-lethal force (firehoses, tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets) to disperse crowds - they are brutal names I cannot repeat on THR.
If they abandon areas and withdraw - they are cowardly names I cannot repeat here.

This whole area of discussion is largely about control. One side hates law enforcement for reasons that are prohibited from discussion on THR...