The militarization of the police

reply to post by dismanrc

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

If I am invited to give a conservation lecture at a park, I am not a Federal employee. If I own the company that comes in to pump out the porto-potties, I am not a Federal employee. If I am a convict on a work detail picking up garbage along a trailway, I am not a Federal employee.

I would be willing to bet that these people who got run through the FBI database don't even medical, much less nice cushy Federal benefits.

Does that help clarify it for you now?

I have been run through the FBI database 3 times with 3 different employers.

Loan Originator

Financial Planner

Collections

All it is, is a basic run of the mill background check to make sure in my case, I havent committed any white collar/money related felonies.

All they do is take your prints and run them through the FBI database. I have been arrested before so the police had my prints anyways. Its not that big of a deal.

If SHTF and they start looking for people based on prints, I will burn mine off if I have to. That is if they get past my german shepherd, my pitbull, and my 1911.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by BluByWho]

reply to post by BluByWho


It certainly is true that more and more employers are doing backround checks on employees. Some dig deeper than others. Either way though, these certainly and clearly are steps toward a militant totalitarian society.

I was just reading on a site about John Titor(the time traveler) anyway he predicted the militarization of the police.Here is the link.There are some disturbing videos there.

www.johntitor.strategicbrains.com...

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

We need that kind of gear at out department, we are outgunned at every turn. Most departments in our area have switched to MP5 .40 or AR-15 as their console weapon, our department only has a shotgun. We go up against cheap AK's, MAC10's and just about everything else, we need better equipment and training.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Would you still think it was funny if that round had gone through her eye and lodged in her brain?

Concealment: something that hides you.

Cover: Something that hides AND protects you.

Obviously, she doesn't know the difference between the two, but I bet she does now. She used a piece of paper to hide behind like a kid ("If I can't see them, they can't see me!"). She has two brain cells left and they ain't talking to each other.

Since I wasn't there, I can't second guess the cops, but if I were, maybe I'd have just shot her in the ass. Really gets her attention and stings like a b!tch.

reply to post by jerico65

Obviously, she doesn't know the difference between the two, but I bet she does now. She used a piece of paper to hide behind like a kid ("If I can't see them, they can't see me!"). She has two brain cells left and they ain't talking to each other.

She shouldn't have to be afraid of being shot in the first place! Talk about not connecting the last two brain-cells. :shk:

Originally posted by jackinthebox
She shouldn't have to be afraid of being shot in the first place! Talk about not connecting the last two brain-cells.

Yep, I'm a big dummy.

When the cops decide to break out the rubber bullets, it's time to leave the area. Doesn't matter if you're there and peacefully protesting (which I have no problem with), but someone else decided to make things hard for everyone, and maybe it's time to call it a day.

Originally posted by jerico65
Since I wasn't there, I can't second guess the cops, but if I were, maybe I'd have just shot her in the ass. Really gets her attention and stings like a b!tch.

The thigh or stomache is the best areas to hit with a beanbag round so I assume it would be the same with a rubber bullet. Still I hate to say it but once one protester messes up the protest gos the hell in a handbasket.

Lt.

The protest was in no way out of control. The woman was singled out and shot in the back. There was no need to use potentially lethal force if the crowd was dispersing and non-violent. As far as I can tell, she didn't even disobey an instruction.

I hope the people who defend these sort of actions by the police are the first ones to get shot when the food riots start. What if that was your wife or your mother out there? Shame on you.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I hope the people who defend these sort of actions by the police are the first ones to get shot when the food riots start. What if that was your wife or your mother out there? Shame on you.

No one in my family would be foolish enough to be out there, even if they were once they would comply with orders. As for food riots what are you talking about?

reply to post by The_Future_LT

No one in my family would be foolish enough to be out there, even if they were once they would comply with orders.

I don't see how this woman was failing to comply with orders by walking away from an advancing force.

As for food riots what are you talking about?

December 31, 2009.

Food rioting has already started in other countries. Only a matter of time before we start seeing it here.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
December 31, 2009.

Food rioting has already started in other countries. Only a matter of time before we start seeing it here.

So are you psychic, what makes you think riots will occur on that date? I do not think I will see nationwide food riots in my lifetime.

reply to post by The_Future_LT

I do not think I will see nationwide food riots in my lifetime.

And what about martial-law? The death of the US Constitution? It's been suspended sine 1933 anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter anymore.

reply to post by The_Future_LT

So are you psychic, what makes you think riots will occur on that date?

I'm not saying that food riots will necessarily happen on that date. That's when Codex Alimentarius goes into effect though.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
And what about martial-law? The death of the US Constitution? It's been suspended sine 1933 anyway, so I guess it really doesn't matter anymore.

I could see martial law, if an event similar to September 11th were to happen. I could also see martial law in the case of a natural disaster.

What exactly do you mean by the "Death of the Constitution"?

reply to post by The_Future_LT

What exactly do you mean by the "Death of the Constitution"?

Well, it's been suspended since 1933. That's one of the reasons the police can do random warrantless bag searches now, without a Constitutional amendment.

The final death of the Constitution will occur when everyone realizes that Bush was right when he said "it's just a piece of paper." Probably under the next President when the NAU is formed and we become fully Codex compliant.

reply to post by The_Future_LT

I could see martial law, if an event similar to September 11th were to happen. I could also see martial law in the case of a natural disaster.

9/11 gave us the Patriot Act. That is the foundation of a new Constitution. Another terror attack will put it in stone, and invoke a permanent police-state.

Where do you draw the line?

How about getting a chip? 30,000 cops in Britain are getting it for "safety" reasons. You gonna take the mark of the beast when the time comes?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The protest was in no way out of control. The woman was singled out and shot in the back. There was no need to use potentially lethal force if the crowd was dispersing and non-violent. As far as I can tell, she didn't even disobey an instruction.

I hope the people who defend these sort of actions by the police are the first ones to get shot when the food riots start. What if that was your wife or your mother out there? Shame on you.

In the video, they say they told her to leave and she didn't. Of course, she's saying that they didn't tell her that, so it's down to a "he said/she said" sort of deal.

And your pictures you posted in the beginning of this thread of military vehicles at the county fire department. Did you think that maybe local Reserve or Guard personnel were getting or giving training to the fire fighters? Or using their training facilities? We use to go to the fire academy to practice repelling.

reply to post by jerico65

In the video, they say they told her to leave and she didn't. Of course, she's saying that they didn't tell her that, so it's down to a "he said/she said" sort of deal.

So they decide to shoot her in the back after she decided to turn and leave? She was clearly walking away from the line.

And your pictures you posted in the beginning of this thread of military vehicles at the county fire department. Did you think that maybe local Reserve or Guard personnel were getting or giving training to the fire fighters? Or using their training facilities? We use to go to the fire academy to practice repelling.

No. There were no personnel there with the vehicles. When the firefighters train there, they take their firetrucks home with them. Also, there were several generators and a communications vehicle. Not necessary at a fire training facility. Lastly, the vehichles have been there for about a year or so now.