(January 5, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm)FFaith Wrote: One thing they do NOT need is better equipment, but they are getting plenty. Militarization of the police is ramping up, and that's not a good thing. That's another extreme. The US is already enough of a police state as is. Wanting the police to have way better equipment and wanting the police to have no guns at all are both terrible propositions.

I agree. 

We cant keep making police survival about material things. Everyone wants cops to make it home safely. I am sure Shell B does too. 

It isn't a matter of us vs them, cops vs society or society vs cops. Or I should say, it should not be.

The biggest thing, is economics, the second thing is TRUST. But neither of that can happen between society and cops if both have to fear the other being armed to the teeth. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying not armed at all, but again, both are flooded with weapons and that is good for profits, but lousy for creating trust between cops and society.

The "better" to me is not making so many. The "better" to me is not allowing combat spray weapons in private hands, or big clips. If you don't want cops armed with spray weapons and big clips, then why should they have to fear a public with the same thing?

And we SHOULD make it harder for domestic abusers, the mentally ill, and domestic and foreign terrorists to get their hands on them. No record at time of buy does not prevent the buyer from hurting others after the buy.

Yes, the biggest thing is economics. Trust is a big thing too. What trust can there be when the police look more like an occupying army to so many citizens? We agree here.

---

(January 5, 2018 at 7:45 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(January 5, 2018 at 6:00 pm)FFaith Wrote: One thing they do NOT need is better equipment, but they are getting plenty. Militarization of the police is ramping up, and that's not a good thing. That's another extreme. The US is already enough of a police state as is. Wanting the police to have way better equipment and wanting the police to have no guns at all are both terrible propositions.

Why do you assume I mean weapons when I say better equipment? I actually had in mind non-lethal methods of keeping themselves and the public safe, even if we need new innovations to make that happen. I never for a second was thinking better guns.

Sorry about that. I misinterpreted because I didn't really think the police were lacking in equipment all that much. More bullet proof vests make sense, and more police should have body cams. The body cams seem to have a decent effect, although things are still not great even with them, but are improved somewhat. The problem with non-lethal methods is that they can not always be trusted. Because of the adrenaline, it can take a lot to put someone down, and that puts the officer's life in danger. If there was a non-lethal method that was just as effective in taking perps down though, I'd definitely be in favour of that, as I'm sure almost everyone would. Police will be replaced with robots soon enough, and at that point we won't have to worry about the safety of the officer.

Anything it takes to solve the problem is a welcome advance.

(January 5, 2018 at 8:00 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(January 5, 2018 at 7:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I'm just going by what you wrote.

Your precious cops killed 3.25 people per day in 2017.  Let's see you come up with as many examples where tanks saved lives.

I'll wait.

You screwed the pooch, maniac man. You type way faster than you read.

One example is one example.  Perhaps you typed others in invisible ink?

On one hand i don't like the militarization of police . Short of war i see no reason why police should be armed like soldiers. Ultra violent events like mass shootings are an exception not a rule . And not a justification to turn cops into a military. The lives saved are not worth the abuse risked . 

On the other hand i reject the idea the cops have the right to shoot you for resisting or because they may think you have a gun 

But on the last hand i agree there are instances where killing is justified. But as a last resort . Not a first response .

(January 6, 2018 at 1:25 am)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 5, 2018 at 8:00 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: You screwed the pooch, maniac man. You type way faster than you read.

One example is one example.  Perhaps you typed others in invisible ink?

Still trying to dig your way out of that faux pas, I see.

Why are you ignoring his request that you justify your suggestion?

(January 6, 2018 at 11:01 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why are you ignoring his request that you justify your suggestion?

Because he made up a statement and attributed it to me. Fuck that shit.

(January 6, 2018 at 11:06 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(January 6, 2018 at 11:01 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Why are you ignoring his request that you justify your suggestion?

Because he made up a statement and attributed it to me. Fuck that shit.

He drew a reasonable inference and asked you to explain it.

<double post edited>

(January 6, 2018 at 8:32 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(January 6, 2018 at 11:06 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Because he made up a statement and attributed it to me. Fuck that shit.

He drew a reasonable inference and asked you to explain it.

You mean he put words in my mouth and began his usual baying of the hounds. Fucking shit gets tedious.