Are Police in America Now a Military, Occupying Force?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

By John W. Whitehead
August 05, 2013

Despite the steady hue and cry by government agencies about the need for more police, more sophisticated weaponry, and the difficulties of preserving the peace and maintaining security in our modern age, the reality is far different. Indeed, violent crime in America has been on a steady decline, and if current trends continue, Americans will finish the year 2013 experiencing the lowest murder rate in over a century.
Despite this clear referendum on the fact that communities would be better served by smaller, demilitarized police forces, police agencies throughout the country are dramatically increasing in size and scope. Some of the nation’s larger cities boast police forces the size of small armies. (New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg actually likes to brag that the NYPD is his personal army.) For example, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has reached a total of 10,000 officers. It takes its place alongside other cities boasting increasingly large police forces, including New York (36,000 officers) and Chicago (13,400 officers). When considered in terms of cops per square mile, Los Angeles assigns a whopping 469 officers per square mile, followed by New York with 303 officers per square mile, and Chicago with 227 cops per square mile.
Of course, such heavy police presence comes at a price. Los Angeles spends over $2 billion per year on the police force, a 36% increase within the last eight years. The LAPD currently consumes over 55% of Los Angeles’ discretionary budget, a 9% increase over the past nine years. Meanwhile, street repair and maintenance spending has declined by 36%, and in 2011, one-fifth of the city’s fire stations lost units, increasing response times for 911 medical emergencies.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It all started back in the 1980s, when Congress launched the 1033 Program to allow the Department of Defense to transfer surplus military goods to state and local police agencies. The 1033 program has grown dramatically, with some 13,000 police agencies in all 50 states and four US territories currently participating. In 2012, the federal government transferred $546 million worth of property to state and local police agencies. This 1033 program allows small towns like Rising Star, Texas, with a population of 835 and only one full-time police officer, to acquire $3.2 million worth of goods and military gear from the federal government over the course of fourteen months.
Military equipment sent to small towns has included high-powered weapons, assault vehicles and tactical gear. However, after it was discovered that local police agencies were failing to keep inventories of their acquired firearms and in some cases, selling the equipment for a profit, the transfer of firearms was temporarily suspended until October 2013. In the meantime, police agencies can still receive a variety of other toys and gizmos, including “aircraft, boats, Humvees, body armor, weapon scopes, infrared imaging systems and night-vision goggles,” not to mention more general items such as “bookcases, hedge trimmers, telescopes, brassieres, golf carts, coffee makers and television sets.”^^^^^^ ------------------------------------- Now we have the deliberately government manufactured open Southern border problem(drugs, mass murders and foreign incursions-raids into our nation) justifying the militarization of our police forces. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I don't believe the evidence supports your conclusion. No matter how much you armor up the one police officer in Rising Star, Texas he wouldn't be an occupying force.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't believe the evidence supports your conclusion. No matter how much you armor up the one police officer in Rising Star, Texas he wouldn't be an occupying force.
Perhaps with a little government retraining and a new mandate he would be. Bamboy sure wants that Nazi-police force and the one we have already would be easy to convert. Just give 'em new weapons , new training , new mandate and a pay raise. Presto, bamboy's new Gestapo. He already got illegal dictatorial authority granted to him, what else does he need? I fear you are not seeing the whole picture that's coming into focus.. Bad cops are already arrogant and elitist like the Nazis were. With more power and more money most would flip on over IMHO.. ---------------------------------MAYBE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE EX-MILITARY ONES WOULDNT BUT 99% OF THE OTHERS WOULD. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Perhaps with a little government retraining and a new mandate he would be. Bamboy sure wants that Nazi-police force and the one we have already would be easy to convert. Just give 'em new weapons , new training , new mandate and a pay raise. Presto, bamboy's new Gestapo. He already got illegal dictatorial authority granted to him, what else does he need? I fear you are not seeing the whole picture that's coming into focus.. Bad cops are already arrogant and elitist like the Nazis were. With more power and more money most would flip on over IMHO.. ---------------------------------MAYBE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE EX-MILITARY ONES WOULDNT BUT 99% OF THE OTHERS WOULD. -Tyr

Wow. One the one hand you give great credit that one police officer would be able to subdue his 835 citizens singlehandedly and then on the other you've just tossed him into the Nazi camp.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Wow. One the one hand you give great credit that one police officer would be able to subdue his 835 citizens singlehandedly and then on the other you've just tossed him into the Nazi camp. I HAVENT TOSSED ANYBODY YET. I believe I'll wait until after they do the deed, Hondo.. Never even stated praise for subduing 835 citizens but did cite my agreement that being properly armed to fight the criminals and Mexican drug gangs is a requirement down there. Also stated why its deliberately made to be a requirement. Do you overlook the point being made in most of my post out of lack of comprehension or is it a deliberate act with deceit and misrepresentation in your heart? Inquiring minds would like to know and even if they don't I would. ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

I HAVENT TOSSED ANYBODY YET. I believe I'll wait until after they do the deed, Hondo.. Never even stated praise for subduing 835 citizens but did cite my agreement that being properly armed to fight the criminals and Mexican drug gangs is a requirement down there. Also stated why its deliberately made to be a requirement. Do you overlook the point being made in most of my post out of lack of comprehension or is it a deliberate act with deceit and misrepresentation in your heart? Inquiring minds would like to know and even if they don't I would. ;)--Tyr

Are you kidding? It's not like I'm putting words in your mouth; the quotes are right there.


Perhaps with a little government retraining and a new mandate he would be. ... BUT 99% OF THE OTHERS WOULD. -Tyr

What did I misrepresent? Also that one guy in Texas would have no chance against the drug gangs either no matter what you give him.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Are you kidding? It's not like I'm putting words in your mouth; the quotes are right there.



What did I misrepresent? Also that one guy in Texas would have no chance against the drug gangs either no matter what you give him. Sorry my use of the word he did not mean that individual specifically rather it was meant to mean any police officer except the ones I later excluded because they were ex-military and had honor and integrity. General terms used because obviously I do not know all the police. Stop being so nit picky. I can easily turn it back on you but would rather not do so as it's childish and serves no purpose.. You know that so consider this post with a bit more that your usual disrespect for me. ;) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is what one guy can do and it wasn't a machine gun he used.. -Tyr http://www.artofmanliness.com/trunk/687/gorkha-soldier-saves-girl-from-rape-and-takes-on-40-train-robbers-with-only-a-khukuri/ ---------------- Gorkha Soldier Saves Girl from Rape and Takes on 40 Train Robbers with Only a Khukuri

Bishnu Shrestha, who had just retired from the Indian army where he served as a Gorkha soldier, held off a horde of robbers that tried to rob a train in India. From the article on Republica: (http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=27100)
“The band of about 40 robbers, some of whom were travelling as passengers, stopped the train in the Chittaranjan jungles in West Bengal around midnight. Shrestha– who had boarded the train at Ranchi in Jharkhand, the place of his posting–was in seat no. 47 in coach AC3.
“They started snatching jewelry, cell phones, cash, laptops and other belongings from the passengers,” Shrestha recalled. The soldier had somehow remained a silent spectator amidst the melee, but not for long. He had had enough when the robbers stripped an 18-year-old girl sitting next to him and tried to rape her right in front of her parents. He then took out his khukuri and took on the robbers.
“The girl cried for help, saying ´You are a soldier, please save a sister´,” Shrestha recalled. “I prevented her from being raped, thinking of her as my own sister,” he added. He took one of the robbers under control and then started to attack the others. He said the rest of the robbers fled after he killed three of them with his khukuri and injured eight others…“Fighting the enemy in battle is my duty as a soldier; taking on the dacoits in the train was my duty as a human being,” said the Indian army nayak.
Essentially, one man took on 40 armed thieves with only a khukuri. What is a khukuri?
http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2011/02/khukuri.jpg (http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2011/02/khukuri.jpg)
To be filed under: Bad. Ass.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I really need to get me one of those babies. What a wicked looking skinning knife that would be in my hands!! I've no small experience with knives myself.... -Tyr

[fj1200]

Sorry my use of the word he did not mean that individual specifically rather it was meant to mean any police officer except the ones I later excluded because they were ex-military and had honor and integrity. General terms used because obviously I do not know all the police. Stop being so nit picky. I can easily turn it back on you but would rather not do so as it's childish and serves no purpose.. You know that so consider this post with a bit more that your usual disrespect for me. ;)

Here is what one guy can do and it wasn't a machine gun he used.. -Tyr

Gorkha Soldier Saves Girl from Rape and Takes on 40 Train Robbers with Only a Khukuri
...
To be filed under: Bad. Ass.-Tyr

Good on the Gurkha. He would not have accomplished such in TX. ;)

I submit to you that "99% of the others would" is not a general term. As far as my "usual" it's just a matter of challenging premises. So no, I don't think we are subject to a military, occupying force.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Good on the Gurkha. He would not have accomplished such in TX. ;)

I submit to you that "99% of the others would" is not a general term. As far as my "usual" it's just a matter of challenging premises. So no, I don't think we are subject to a military, occupying force. I thought this comment taken from that same site and was somebody's thought on what the Gurkha did.

Kevin August 2, 2013 at 7:26 pm (http://www.artofmanliness.com/trunk/687/gorkha-soldier-saves-girl-from-rape-and-takes-on-40-train-robbers-with-only-a-khukuri/#comment-15878) <dd class="comment odd alt thread-odd thread-alt depth-1">A Gorkha saves his countrymen/women and is hailed a hero (and your damn fucking right he should be, hail, hail!), but I fight off a group of illegal immigrant Mexican gangsters with a tire iron when I (and her) are pretty certain they are looking to abduct a girl for a human slave ring, and I get chased by both local, and state cops. America punishes, doesn’t reward heroic behavior.


</dd> Which points to the big difference in what values are being promoted in this nation currently. I once paid a very hefty fine for stopping a guy that was beating his girlfriend in a bar, I was not a bouncer there so no it was not my job. After explaining why I stepped in to stop his brutality the ignorant judge told me it was none of my business so the following fight was my fault. Judge fined me but only gave an oral reprimand to the guy I stomped. I stepped in simply pulling him off the girl not hitting him. He spun around and tagged me upside the head. My actions after that were defensive in nature. Judge was a pansy ass chump that hadn't a clue about anything. According to him I should have ignored it the same as all the other people did. Wasn't anything heroic about it because I knew before I laid hands on the dude I could break him like a twig if it came to that. Still the judge refused to acknowledge my duty to intercede and stop the beating the helpless girl was getting. This was back in 1975 and the judge was obviously a damn fool.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

but I fight off a group of illegal immigrant Mexican gangsters with a tire iron when I (and her) are pretty certain they are looking to abduct a girl for a human slave ring, and I get chased by both local, and state cops. America punishes, doesn’t reward heroic behavior.
Which points to the big difference in what values are being promoted in this nation currently.

To say the story is lacking in detail is an understatement but your assessment of the values being promoted is far from a police state.

[logroller]

I thought this comment taken from that same site and was somebody's thought on what the Gurkha did.
Which points to the big difference in what values are being promoted in this nation currently. I once paid a very hefty fine for stopping a guy that was beating his girlfriend in a bar, I was not a bouncer there so no it was not my job. After explaining why I stepped in to stop his brutality the ignorant judge told me it was none of my business so the following fight was my fault. Judge fined me but only gave an oral reprimand to the guy I stomped. I stepped in simply pulling him off the girl not hitting him. He spun around and tagged me upside the head. My actions after that were defensive in nature. Judge was a pansy ass chump that hadn't a clue about anything. According to him I should have ignored it the same as all the other people did. Wasn't anything heroic about it because I knew before I laid hands on the dude I could break him like a twig if it came to that. Still the judge refused to acknowledge my duty to intercede and stop the beating the helpless girl was getting. This was back in 1975 and the judge was obviously a damn fool.. -Tyr

Just looking at the circumstances: in a bar, (thus obviously alcohol was involved) getting into a fight over a girl....doesn't paint a very flattering picture of honor and values; not surprisingly, the judge wasn't persuaded as such. But did the girl testify and speak to the other guy "beating her"? How about other witnesses, perhaps sober ones, like the bartender, server, bouncer etc... How about the police report from the incident-- what did it include? Im guessing that it didn't mitigate what was a simple assault. From the outside looking, its not "obvious" that between drunk guy in bar getting into fight he thought justified and a texas judge, that it was the judge who was the damn fool.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just looking at the circumstances: in a bar, (thus obviously alcohol was involved) getting into a fight over a girl....doesn't paint a very flattering picture of honor and values; not surprisingly, the judge wasn't persuaded as such. But did the girl testify and speak to the other guy "beating her"? How about other witnesses, perhaps sober ones, like the bartender, server, bouncer etc... How about the police report from the incident-- what did it include? Im guessing that it didn't mitigate what was a simple assault. From the outside looking, its not "obvious" that between drunk guy in bar getting into fight he thought justified and a texas judge, that it was the judge who was the damn fool. My, my , my. Where did you get your facts. I wasn't drunk , he and the gal had came in only about 5 minutes before arguing on the way in. Neither was drunk, I know I was a bouncer for many years and one has to know such things. I didn't get into a fight over a girl, I had no interest in her nor she me as I had never saw her before we were strangers to each other. So letting a man beat a woman is honorable or is stopping the guy before he does to much harm? I stepped in to merely pull him off as I stated , he hit me and that started a fight. No attack upon me and no fight would have occurred. Do tell where you got the "drunk guy info" and the "getting into a fight over a girl" as well as the "Texas judge" or even " the police report". I left after kicking his ass , he went to the police station to sign a complaint against me. His girl did not appear at court (apparently she split for parts unknown ) . I was taken to the police station next day and put up a bond released ,told to be at court Friday afternoon the next week. Good God how did you come up with all this wrong information and then use it to make judgment that was dead wrong Log!?? How about you explain the embellishment ? Are you replying to my story or something I am unaware of? Lets get that clarified before we proceed any further shall we? If replying to my story about my encounter you don't get to embellish and make up your own facts . I told it just the way it happened. The guy was not drunk, the girl was not interested in me nor I her and there was no Texas judge. We were not in Texas...My ignoring a man over 6 ' tall and around 220 pounds beating on a 5'4' about 115 pound girl would have been better, would have been honorable?? Or do you think I should have begged the angry man to stop? If so you haven't a clue about such people IMHO. The judge was pansy-ass clueless bastard just as a great many of them are. A list of mistaken facts you got somewhere.-Tyr 1. neither guy was drunk 2. No fight ensued over a girl 3. No Texas judge. 4. no police report taken at scene ,rather a complaint he filed later at police station. 5. no witness statements for either side were given in court. Where did you get all this wrong info??? -Tyr

[Gaffer]

My, my , my. Where did you get your facts. I wasn't drunk , he and the gal had came in only about 5 minutes before arguing on the way in. Neither was drunk, I know I was a bouncer for many years and one has to know such things. I didn't get into a fight over a girl, I had no interest in her nor she me as I had never saw her before we were strangers to each other. So letting a man beat a woman is honorable or is stopping the guy before he does to much harm? I stepped in to merely pull him off as I stated , he hit me and that started a fight. No attack upon me and no fight would have occurred. Do tell where you got the "drunk guy info" and the "getting into a fight over a girl" as well as the "Texas judge" or even " the police report". I left after kicking his ass , he went to the police station to sign a complaint against me. His girl did not appear at court (apparently she split for parts unknown ) . I was taken to the police station next day and put up a bond released ,told to be at court Friday afternoon the next week. Good God how did you come up with all this wrong information and then use it to make judgment that was dead wrong Log!?? How about you explain the embellishment ? Are you replying to my story or something I am unaware of? Lets get that clarified before we proceed any further shall we? If replying to my story about my encounter you don't get to embellish and make up your own facts . I told it just the way it happened. The guy was not drunk, the girl was not interested in me nor I her and there was no Texas judge. We were not in Texas...My ignoring a man over 6 ' tall and around 220 pounds beating on a 5'4' about 115 pound girl would have been better, would have been honorable?? Or do you think I should have begged the angry man to stop? If so you haven't a clue about such people IMHO. The judge was pansy-ass clueless bastard just as a great many of them are. A list of mistaken facts you got somewhere.-Tyr 1. neither guy was drunk 2. No fight ensued over a girl 3. No Texas judge. 4. no police report taken at scene ,rather a complaint he filed later at police station. 5. no witness statements for either side were given in court. Where did you get all this wrong info??? -Tyr

Maybe LR feels you should have sent the guy a strongly worded letter Tyr :thumb:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe LR feels you should have sent the guy a strongly worded letter Tyr :thumb:
As you can see by my words here I am by no means a wordsmith.. That sumbiatccch was a tough dude but nothing I couldn't handle even when I was not mad. If I get mad it goes to a whole new level. I knew the guy that owned the bar and a few weeks later he told me he told the cops that questioned him the next day about the incidence the other guy threw the first punch. Now see they shouldn't have let him file a complaint against me but they did. I'm sure he had some kind of pull or else knew one of the cops. Only reason he was even able to spin around and hit was because I was handling him ever so lightly when pulling him off her. I was that careful because I thought to just stop him not fight him but when he tagged , well he had just shat in his own cereal by making that play! ---------------------------------------------------------- I was actually shocked when reading Log's reply to me. Haven't a clue where he got those erroneous "facts" but appears those errors led to a wrong conclusion. Now there have been other fights where I did fight over a girl but that wasn't one of those. In those fights I didn't hold back and didn't try to be gentle.. I had two things that pissed me off enough to bust up a guy badly and that was if they messed with my money or my honey! OK, a third , if they messed with a member of my family. O' to be a wild young buck again... I was damn lucky just to make it out alive.. ;)--Tyr

[logroller]

My, my , my. Where did you get your facts. I wasn't drunk , he and the gal had came in only about 5 minutes before arguing on the way in. Neither was drunk, I know I was a bouncer for many years and one has to know such things. I didn't get into a fight over a girl, I had no interest in her nor she me as I had never saw her before we were strangers to each other. So letting a man beat a woman is honorable or is stopping the guy before he does to much harm? I stepped in to merely pull him off as I stated , he hit me and that started a fight. No attack upon me and no fight would have occurred. Do tell where you got the "drunk guy info" and the "getting into a fight over a girl" as well as the "Texas judge" or even " the police report". I left after kicking his ass , he went to the police station to sign a complaint against me. His girl did not appear at court (apparently she split for parts unknown ) . I was taken to the police station next day and put up a bond released ,told to be at court Friday afternoon the next week. Good God how did you come up with all this wrong information and then use it to make judgment that was dead wrong Log!?? How about you explain the embellishment ? Are you replying to my story or something I am unaware of? Lets get that clarified before we proceed any further shall we? If replying to my story about my encounter you don't get to embellish and make up your own facts . I told it just the way it happened. The guy was not drunk, the girl was not interested in me nor I her and there was no Texas judge. We were not in Texas...My ignoring a man over 6 ' tall and around 220 pounds beating on a 5'4' about 115 pound girl would have been better, would have been honorable?? Or do you think I should have begged the angry man to stop? If so you haven't a clue about such people IMHO. The judge was pansy-ass clueless bastard just as a great many of them are. A list of mistaken facts you got somewhere.-Tyr 1. neither guy was drunk 2. No fight ensued over a girl 3. No Texas judge. 4. no police report taken at scene ,rather a complaint he filed later at police station. 5. no witness statements for either side were given in court. Where did you get all this wrong info??? -Tyr
Two not drunk guys in a bar getting into a fight... not over a girl, but in defense of a girl...doubtful. But I suppose given your propensity for violence, its believable. Regardless, alcohol impairs your senses, even bouncers!
My bad on the Texas thing; that was earlier in the post and I transposed them. But you committed common assault bro. The fight didn't start when he hit you; it started when you grabbed him. Whether it was justifiable would have rested on evidence of some crime being committed, of injury to her, or ideally testimony from her or an impartial witness, a police report from the incident- there was nothing-- just your word against his and he went to the police to report a crime after being assaulted. You didn't go to the police at all-- which you should have if you had forcefully intervened in the commission of a crime. What you did was just vigilantism.
Did you check on this girl after kicking dudes ass; make sure she was safe from him; Tell her to press charges or you would? Or just take justice in your own hands, (judge, jury and enforcer) then strut your feathers ? What if she had been killed by him later that day in retribution?
Sorry bro, there's a proper way to handle things and an improper way--you chose the latter-- the judge didn't error in his ruling. And all you did was pay a fine. Unfortunately you still didn't learn what you'd done wrong.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Two not drunk guys in a bar getting into a fight... not over a girl, but in defense of a girl...doubtful. But I suppose given your propensity for violence, its believable. Regardless, alcohol impairs your senses, even bouncers!
My bad on the Texas thing; that was earlier in the post and I transposed them. But you committed common assault bro. The fight didn't start when he hit you; it started when you grabbed him. Whether it was justifiable would have rested on evidence of some crime being committed, of injury to her, or ideally testimony from her or an impartial witness, a police report from the incident- there was nothing-- just your word against his and he went to the police to report a crime after being assaulted. You didn't go to the police at all-- which you should have if you had forcefully intervened in the commission of a crime. What you did was just vigilantism.
Did you check on this girl after kicking dudes ass; make sure she was safe from him; Tell her to press charges or you would? Or just take justice in your own hands, (judge, jury and enforcer) then strut your feathers ? What if she had been killed by him later that day in retribution?
Sorry bro, there's a proper way to handle things and an improper way--you chose the latter-- the judge didn't error in his ruling. And all you did was pay a fine. Unfortunately you still didn't learn what you'd done wrong. The girl was behind the bar with the bar owners wife making a phone call for a ride when I left. It was not my responsibility to take care of her. I had already done more than anybody else there was man enough to do. It's common knowledge and well known if a guy pulls you off somebody in a fight in the manner that you know he is not joining in you don't knock the hell out of him. If you do you deserve what you get. He was actually beating a helpless woman! So it wasn't anything macho about just pulling him off. I didn't do it for fame, fortune , gratitude or even "practice". So you transposed drunk guys , Texas judge and fighting over a girl. Then you attempt to chastise me for vigilantism ! So according to you nobody should help a woman that is getting beat up by a man... Do tell Log. Now this is getting interesting . So her with a busted lip , busted nose and still receiving blows I should have just ignored!! Just answer this one question for me since you just told me what a vigilante you think I am/was with my propensity for violence. Would you have just ignored the guy and let him take it ever how far he wanted to?? A simple yes or no will do... I mean you just greatly condemned my action so do tell. You did ask what if he had killed her later, well what if he had killed her then? He was in a blind rage and beating her like she was a damn man.. I don't play that shit!!!!! He was lucky that I didn't break him like a twig. Only reason I didn't was because I thought what if the woman is his wife!?? I don't hold that much for interfering inside a marriage dispute.. Guy went far overboard and paid the price, damn judge was wrong. Just that simple... And as I stated in my reply to Gaffer, I later found out that the bar owner told the cops the next day after it happened that the guy assaulted me! Simply pulling a man off somebody is not assault... The cops had the bar owner's statement but it wasn't presented at court. You know why? Because the damn lying bastard claimed I walked up to him and just started hitting him.. I gather you have zero knowledge how such things are handled or were handled back then. But do answer my question if you would be so kind.. --Tyr

[Kathianne]

I don't believe the evidence supports your conclusion. No matter how much you armor up the one police officer in Rising Star, Texas he wouldn't be an occupying force.

I agree with your statement, however I do think that the paramilitary nature of police departments is growing out of control. I haven't a problem with NY, Chicago, LA, other cities of over a couple million having SWAT and a helicopter or two, but the numbers are becoming over done and posing a threat to safety and a philosophical threat of what police vs military are about.

In many instances the funding for all the para-militarization is not on local, but federal. Oftentimes to places with no need. Why is the federal government doing this to such a degree?

Living where I do, I'm aware of the reasons for Chicago having many of the special branches they do, just like NY, LA-they are natural targets. Also living in the area I do, in one of the collar counties of Chicago, perhaps it's a nature of the 5 collar counties being historically more conservative than many parts of the county; perhaps just a natural outgrowth of over 50 years of cooperation. Many of the suburbs in these counties have pop between 40-150k. Indeed, DuPage alone is just slightly behind Cook in population. While O'Hare Field was gerrymandered into the City of Chicago, if there was a real issue, like the plane crash in 1980, the first responders in force would be from DuPage and Cook County, not the City of Chicago, especially in rush hours.

Within the 5 country area also lies Fermi Lab and 2 nuclear power plants, several oil refinery facilities; BP Midwest Headquarters and research. The 5 collar counties each have one SWAT unit manned by police from multiple localities within the county. They also have a 'larger response team' made up of police from each of the 5 counties-which also trains with Chicago special divisions. Larger suburbs have their own SWAT units, but are kept to minimal size and to the best of my knowledge haven't been used in anything but exercises.

That sort of control of both resources and manpower and restraint, are seemingly not the norm in many instances throughout the country:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/paramilitary-police-dont-make-us-safer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-police-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203345

[fj1200]

I agree with your statement, however I do think that the paramilitary nature of police departments is growing out of control. I haven't a problem with NY, Chicago, LA, other cities of over a couple million having SWAT and a helicopter or two, but the numbers are becoming over done and posing a threat to safety and a philosophical threat of what police vs military are about.

In many instances the funding for all the para-militarization is not on local, but federal. Oftentimes to places with no need. Why is the federal government doing this to such a degree?

Why the Feds? Votes and perception likely. Everyone likes a politician who is doing something for them right? But there are issues with cops at all different levels and I would think that SWAT type efforts are necessarily a higher risk just because of what they do; not sure if they do the no-knock warrants but mistakes are going to go wrong in a big way, not just a bad you-tube video. But creating an aggressive team with aggressive personalities is a far cry from an occupying force.

Indeed Atlanta had such a team, Red Dog?, that had too many abuses and was shut down.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why the Feds? Votes and perception likely. Everyone likes a politician who is doing something for them right? But there are issues with cops at all different levels and I would think that SWAT type efforts are necessarily a higher risk just because of what they do; not sure if they do the no-knock warrants but mistakes are going to go wrong in a big way, not just a bad you-tube video. But creating an aggressive team with aggressive personalities is a far cry from an occupying force.

Indeed Atlanta had such a team, Red Dog?, that had too many abuses and was shut down.
1. there are issues with cops at all different levels, 2. But creating an aggressive team with aggressive personalities, 3. Indeed Atlanta had such a team, Red Dog?, that had too many abuses and was shut down. FJ you gave three good examples to point to why arming regular police across the nation with military weapons and advanced training could easily be a prelude to the creating an occupying force by the Federal government. The fact that a few designated areas around the nation needs such beefed up police forces does not justify the Feds spreading the policy across the nation and into small cities/towns where there is no true need for it. Looks like an agenda being carried out to me. Of course not enough evidence yet to say with 100% certainty that its being groomed to be an occupying force but something is going on that's not on the up and up IMHO.-Tyr

[logroller]

The girl was behind the bar with the bar owners wife making a phone call for a ride when I left. It was not my responsibility to take care of her. I had already done more than anybody else there was man enough to do. It's common knowledge and well known if a guy pulls you off somebody in a fight in the manner that you know he is not joining in you don't knock the hell out of him. If you do you deserve what you get. He was actually beating a helpless woman! So it wasn't anything macho about just pulling him off. I didn't do it for fame, fortune , gratitude or even "practice". So you transposed drunk guys , Texas judge and fighting over a girl. Then you attempt to chastise me for vigilantism ! So according to you nobody should help a woman that is getting beat up by a man... Do tell Log. Now this is getting interesting . So her with a busted lip , busted nose and still receiving blows I should have just ignored!! Just answer this one question for me since you just told me what a vigilante you think I am/was with my propensity for violence. Would you have just ignored the guy and let him take it ever how far he wanted to?? A simple yes or no will do... I mean you just greatly condemned my action so do tell. You did ask what if he had killed her later, well what if he had killed her then? He was in a blind rage and beating her like she was a damn man.. I don't play that shit!!!!! He was lucky that I didn't break him like a twig. Only reason I didn't was because I thought what if the woman is his wife!?? I don't hold that much for interfering inside a marriage dispute.. Guy went far overboard and paid the price, damn judge was wrong. Just that simple... And as I stated in my reply to Gaffer, I later found out that the bar owner told the cops the next day after it happened that the guy assaulted me! Simply pulling a man off somebody is not assault... The cops had the bar owner's statement but it wasn't presented at court. You know why? Because the damn lying bastard claimed I walked up to him and just started hitting him.. I gather you have zero knowledge how such things are handled or were handled back then. But do answer my question if you would be so kind.. --Tyr
was this even a criminal case? You should have filed one against him from the get go. Then The ball would be in his court, not yours.
Typically the first appearance in court is an arraignment, you enter a plea and , if not guilty, a court date is set. Then evidence is discovered, including any witness statements. sometimes you have to request that such evidence be sent to you as well; you can even request it right there, during the arraignment-- thats how you prepare a defense. If it was just your word against his, where in all likelihood there were other witnesses-- you should have made a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. If that was refused, then ask for a continuance to prepare your defense. What you don't do is say at your first court appearance that the guy's a woman-beater and had beat-down due to him and he's lucky you didn't snap him like a twig. Lacking evidence to woman- beater issue, it tends to make you look like the aggressor. Best to just say nothing at all. i was once on a jury and the evidence was weak, and the DA was getting coached by the judge-- pitiful-- but the defendant testified in his own defense...poorly and he was convicted due to his own unbelievable testimony. Like I said, you should have reported the guys beating of said woman. What I didn't say was that you should/shouldn't have interfered with a woman being assaulted-- nor Say anything at all about a "strongly worded letter", or ask him repeatedly to stop? If I did, please show me where. Otherwise, that gets dismissed for lack of evidence. See how that works?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

was this even a criminal case? You should have filed one against him from the get go. Then The ball would be in his court, not yours.
Typically the first appearance in court is an arraignment, you enter a plea and , if not guilty, a court date is set. Then evidence is discovered, including any witness statements. sometimes you have to request that such evidence be sent to you as well; you can even request it right there, during the arraignment-- thats how you prepare a defense. If it was just your word against his, where in all likelihood there were other witnesses-- you should have made a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. If that was refused, then ask for a continuance to prepare your defense. What you don't do is say at your first court appearance that the guy's a woman-beater and had beat-down due to him and he's lucky you didn't snap him like a twig. Lacking evidence to woman- beater issue, it tends to make you look like the aggressor. Best to just say nothing at all. i was once on a jury and the evidence was weak, and the DA was getting coached by the judge-- pitiful-- but the defendant testified in his own defense...poorly and he was convicted due to his own unbelievable testimony. Like I said, you should have reported the guys beating of said woman. What I didn't say was that you should/shouldn't have interfered with a woman being assaulted-- nor Say anything at all about a "strongly worded letter", or ask him repeatedly to stop? If I did, please show me where. Otherwise, that gets dismissed for lack of evidence. See how that works?
What, you think I didn't tell the judge the whole story? That I didn't mention the guy hitting me and that their were witnesses to that? That merely pulling a man off a woman when he is about to beat her senseless is assault? The judge likely did the same thing you did --prejudge me by my reputation and past record. And who had the cops go to the bar to question the owner? Then did not submit the findings? Why it was the cops and they didn't submit because they went there to get the owner to validate his lie about me just attacking him. Of course I had no way of knowing about that to bring it into court. Short and simple is he pull in town and I did not. The judge was a damn chump and I got shafted. No big deal , I only related the story to highlight how often judges are damn asses and haven't the slightest desire to see justice prevail!!! Pretty common policy back then for the cops to question the bar owner about fights and take that owner's word over either of the fighter's word. The bar owner had thanked me for stepping in because with him being 69 years old and in bad health he wasn't capable. I see you couldn't step away from your first prejudgment that you made with the faulty info. I have to say, you made that original first judgment with faulty info and not asking a few key questions. As I said, obvious you've never had much knowledge of how such things are handled. Sure I could have gotten a lawyer had I known the judge was a dumbass but that's water under the bridge. Life is full of injustices both large and small. He is one of the very few guys I didn't give a very serious warning about running to the cops. I never made that mistake again. -Tyr

[fj1200]

1. there are issues with cops at all different levels, 2. But creating an aggressive team with aggressive personalities, 3. Indeed Atlanta had such a team, Red Dog?, that had too many abuses and was shut down. FJ you gave three good examples to point to why arming regular police across the nation with military weapons and advanced training could easily be a prelude to the creating an occupying force by the Federal government. The fact that a few designated areas around the nation needs such beefed up police forces does not justify the Feds spreading the policy across the nation and into small cities/towns where there is no true need for it. Looks like an agenda being carried out to me. Of course not enough evidence yet to say with 100% certainty that its being groomed to be an occupying force but something is going on that's not on the up and up IMHO.-Tyr

Those three examples I gave are small minorities of the overall population of police and even Red Dog was shut down due to abuses; I just disagree that the evidence you present leads to the conclusion you've reached. What is even the purpose of having an occupying force? Have the people rejected the government? Are we rising up in revolution? Are we no longer paying our taxes? I submit that none of those even set the table for requiring that we be "occupied." In fact the complete opposite of that is the reality and you rail against all the time here; we are sheep succumbing to the vast Federal bureaucracy to cradle us from birth to death. Perhaps we should welcome a little occupation to wake up the masses.

[revelarts]

the Question I always have is just how much BS the American people put up with in the name of being law abiding citizens?
and How Much BS will Cops dispense in the name of "law enforcement" and "Public safety".


If cops and buses rolls down the street and say "Get on there's a temporary, public emergency." we all good citizens to cooperate and to stay in the temp facilities until the gov't can secure the situation." Please cooperate with law enforcement.

Or please turn in your weapons

or this is more likey, the cops and buses are only for SOME of your neighbors. the ones with the weird political views or strange habits, are trouble makers or with "terrorist connections".

The police "just doing their jobs" rounding up potential terrorists nation wide" for your safety."

All the Good citizens who obey the gov't "don't have anything to worry about."
You'll get to vote in the next elections and everything.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Maybe LR feels you should have sent the guy a strongly worded letter Tyr :thumb:

That's the UN's job.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

the Question I always have is just how much BS the American people put up with in the name of being law abiding citizens?
and How Much BS will Cops dispense in the name of "law enforcement" and "Public safety".


If cops and buses rolls down the street and say "Get on there's a temporary, public emergency." we all good citizens to cooperate and to stay in the temp facilities until the gov't can secure the situation." Please cooperate with law enforcement.

Or please turn in your weapons

or this is more likey, the cops and buses are only for SOME of your neighbors. the ones with the weird political views or strange habits, are trouble makers or with "terrorist connections".

The police "just doing their jobs" rounding up potential terrorists nation wide" for your safety."

All the Good citizens who obey the gov't "don't have anything to worry about."
You'll get to vote in the next elections and everything.
Or issue communications warning that our returning war veterans are likely future terrorists!!! I really liked that dead giveaway but most Americans just let it fly on by ..Sad, how indoctrinated and stupid so many of them are. -Tyr

[revelarts]

And BTW. at this point do they have to round up people?

What if they just cut off your power, heat, water, internet access, phone access, or just froze your bank and credit accounts until you comply or confess.
If the gov't targets you and your friends you must be guilty right? if not they'll fix it right?