but for video...

[sggatecl]

So then my post does apply to you.

I was the only person talking about military vehicles and police at the time, not sure who else you'd be talking to. But ok, good to know.

 

[Thumb]

That's a load of crap. A fire hose isn't 1 step down from a cannon or a big machine gun. A rifle is more than a fire hose.

Why do you need a rifle on a tripod on a vehicle in a town of protesting and rioting?

Dammit Red stop making sense! You are wrecking his argument!

 

[Spartanmack]

That's a load of crap. A fire hose isn't 1 step down from a cannon or a big machine gun. A rifle is more than a fire hose.

Why do you need a rifle on a tripod on a vehicle in a town of protesting and rioting?

Where's is there a tripod mounted rifle? and what's this "one step down" stuff? The point about water cannons is that is the only "weapon system" you will see on armored police vehicles other than the small arms the cops themselves carry. Police, particularly tactical units carry rifles - that's routine. There's a difference between having an armored vehicle with a water cannon for crowd control and what other call "tanks" or other military weapons.

 

[Spartanmack]

I was the only person talking about military vehicles and police at the time, not sure who else you'd be talking to. But ok, good to know.

How many times are you going to change your story? First you make comments about cops and tanks then you say you don't have a problem with cops having armored vehicles so I say others said they had a problem with cops having armored vehicles in other threads to which you said you were one of them so then I said 'ok, then my post DOES apply to you as well' now you're claiming to be the only one who made any such comments. It's like talking to a first grader.

 

[Spartanmack]

How do you know what kind of rifle it is from the 2 1/2 inches of barrel poking out past the bullet shield?

Just because it's not a .50 cal BMG does not mean it's not some kind of mounted LMG.

it's not.

 

[sggatecl]

My initial post:

It blows my mind that in a day and age where we have local law enforcement buying tanks and other military weaponry that they haven't installed dash and body cams yet.

Your reply:

So where were the armored vehicles that were used to take down the San Bernardino shooters from? Hard to say from the pictures if they were local, county or vehicles from multiple jurisdictions (looks like there were at least 4). What's the gripe with police and armored vehicles? I for one am glad those officers were so well protected. Is it not fair to the criminals that the cops have an edge in those situations - an edge in protection as none of the vehicles have heavy weapons/artillery capabilities? Are any of you people whining about police "militarization" going to tell the spouses and children of those officers that they should have to take on heavily armed shooters in regular police cruisers? What's the reason for that?

Please tell me how what you said was relevant AT ALL to what I said? You're just rambling angrily and I don't understand why.

 

[Thumb]

it's not.

Well that's all the evidence I need I guess, thanks.

 

[Spartanmack]

My initial post:

Your reply:

Please tell me how what you said was relevant AT ALL to what I said? You're just rambling angrily and I don't understand why.

There's a lot you don't understand, first of all that I'm angry or rambling. My post had to do with a lot of the talk that's gone on around this board about police and "tanks" and the militarization of police - notice I didn't quote your post. Maybe it's not all about you. If anyone is rambling, it's you. You seem to be confused about your own position because first you reply to me that you don't care that cops have this equipment and I tell you my post was for the people whining that type of equipment caused riots in Ferguson (one of the dumbest excuses for riots ever), then you replied tseeming to say you were one of those people, unless that was sarcasm and you thought I was talking about your one post.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well that's all the evidence I need I guess, thanks.

Anytime.

 

[Spartanmack]

Are you telling me you wouldn't react any differently if you felt someone had dealt with you with a heavy hand?

I completely missed this post. Differently? I don't know but I wouldn't riot if cops showed up to my protest with an armored vehicle(s). Again, that's the dumbest excuse for a riot I have ever heard.

 

[sggatecl]

There's a lot you don't understand, first of all that I'm angry or rambling. My post had to do with a lot of the talk that's gone on around this board about police and "tanks" and the militarization of police - notice I didn't quote your post. Maybe it's not all about you. If anyone is rambling, it's you. You seem to be confused about your own position because first you reply to me that you don't care that cops have this equipment and I tell you my post was for the people whining that type of equipment caused riots in Ferguson (one of the dumbest excuses for riots ever), then you replied tseeming to say you were one of those people, unless that was sarcasm and you thought I was talking about your one post.

So if you weren't responding to me, which you say you weren't, then you were just jumping completely off topic and rambling about something mentioned in other threads. You don't see how that would be confusing to someone like me who doesn't live and breathe R vs D bullshit in these forums like you and a few others do?

As far as my 'position' goes, I never really stated one here. Because (and i'll bold this so maybe you remember this time) NOBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT WHETHER MILITARY WEAPONS/VEHICLES SHOULD BE USED BY POLICE. But they are now so good job on that I guess if that was your agenda all along.

 

[Spartanmack]

So if you weren't responding to me, which you say you weren't, then you were just jumping completely off topic and rambling about something mentioned in other threads. You don't see how that would be confusing to someone like me who doesn't live and breathe R vs D bullshit in these forums like you and a few others do?

As far as my 'position' goes, I never really stated one here. Because (and i'll bold this so maybe you remember this time) NOBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT WHETHER MILITARY WEAPONS/VEHICLES SHOULD BE USED BY POLICE. But they are now so good job on that I guess if that was your agenda all along.

YES! That is why I posted it. This was an example of why it's good that cops have the equipment that so many people were whining about in other threads about this attack as well as the Ferguson riots. I'm not surprised you need this explained to you so many times but you seem to have finally gotten it. Congratulations. It's a related topic and a recurring theme on the board. And I don't care if you don't believe that I wasn't only addressing your point even though as I said, I didn't quote your post, which if I'm addressing one particular post, I always do. Now, I'm done w/ this stupid little side bar. I can only indulge kindergarten level arguments for so long. Have fun.

 

[Spartanmack]

1st, what evidence is there that they saved a life? I've only read a couple articles, but they didn't say the vehicles were hit with bullets.

Maybe they did. But even if they did, how often have they actually helped?

Their existence isn't even the real problem. If they were tucked away in large and some medium sized cities and never seen except in situations like this one, then fine. But police forces breaking them out for protesters is crazy. Smaller cities with little crime having this stuff is crazy.

Is it your assertion that law enforcement just shot them without being fired upon? Something like this:

Cops: Surrender
Terrorist: No
Cops: BAM!

Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying maybe they weren't willing to fire on police and just pointed their weapons at them so the cops would kill instead of arrest them? Even though they showed a willingness to fire indiscriminately at unarmed civilians. Most reports I've read say the terrorists were killed in a shootout with police - the obvious implication is that cops were fired upon. If so, and the cops were in regular police cruisers they would have been just as vulnerable as the terrorists in their ordinary car or SUV. The assertion that the armored vehicles didn't save lives is absurd.

Edit: I just read excerpts from a CNN interview where Erin Burnett tried to tie the attack to pospartum psychosis - an argument the FBI profiler she was interviewing flat out basically said 'no, Erin it's terrorism from radicalized Islamic terrorists.' In that interview it was made clear that while the husband was driving the SUV, the wife was engaged in a shootout with police. The FBI expert went on to say it was clear she knew what she was doing and had received significant, advanced training in these tactics. So again, the argument that these vehicles didn't save lives or were no more effective than a regular police cruiser in saving lives is on it's face, absurd.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I sure am glad the police are so well-armed when they deal with protesters, because that equipment comes in handy when they deal with terrorists.

I sure am glad we have the 2nd amendment making sure we have enough weaponry to fight our government and local, small-town governments with enough equipment to deal with well-armed threats.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is it your assertion that law enforcement just shot them without being fired upon? Something like this:

Cops: Surrender
Terrorist: No
Cops: BAM!

Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying maybe they weren't willing to fire on police and just pointed their weapons at them so the cops would kill instead of arrest them? Even though they showed a willingness to fire indiscriminately at unarmed civilians. Most reports I've read say the terrorists were killed in a shootout with police - the obvious implication is that cops were fired upon. If so, and the cops were in regular police cruisers they would have been just as vulnerable as the terrorists in their ordinary car or SUV. The assertion that the armored vehicles didn't save lives is absurd.

There have been a lot of shootouts with police over the years, with no military vehicles, and no police shot. Maybe these vehicles saved a life, but maybe they didn't, and there would have been the exact same number of deaths without them.

 

[sggatecl]

YES! That is why I posted it. This was an example of why it's good that cops have the equipment that so many people were whining about in other threads about this attack as well as the Ferguson riots. I'm not surprised you need this explained to you so many times but you seem to have finally gotten it. Congratulations. It's a related topic and a recurring theme on the board. And I don't care if you don't believe that I wasn't only addressing your point even though as I said, I didn't quote your post, which if I'm addressing one particular post, I always do. Now, I'm done w/ this stupid little side bar. I can only indulge kindergarten level arguments for so long. Have fun.

You're the one doing massive edits to one sentence posts ya cunt. Don't act like you don't enjoy this.

 

[Spartanmack]

I sure am glad the police are so well-armed when they deal with protesters, because that equipment comes in handy when they deal with terrorists.

I sure am glad we have the 2nd amendment making sure we have enough weaponry to fight our government and local, small-town governments with enough equipment to deal with well-armed threats.

How many protesters were harmed by the presence of that equipment? The answer of course, is zero.

Edit: are you not glad that the SB area cops had those vehicles? Before you answer, here's a quote from that former FBI profiler (Jim Clemente) in the Erin Burnett interview I referenced above:

...the level of her commitment to this cause had to be extremely high. And that's why I believe that she was already radicalized and he didn’t turn her. Also, the fact that she was able to act calmly in this tactical assault and the shootout with the police. That's the kind of thing that only comes with practice and massive preparation. So, she was definitely trained and prepared for this kind of event. I think they were going out in a hail of bullets either way. And that was their plan.

It seems clear that the police were under attack and fired upon by someone with significant training and pretty powerful weapons. Your argument that the fact the assault wasn't stopped by cops in ordinary cruisers indicates we can't prove the armored vehicles saved lives is just ridiculous.

There have been a lot of shootouts with police over the years, with no military vehicles, and no police shot. Maybe these vehicles saved a life, but maybe they didn't, and there would have been the exact same number of deaths without them.

Have there been any where police were shot? Perhaps you recall this one...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

No military vehicles, 11 cops and 7 civilians shot. Cops had to commandeer an armored car to evacuate the wounded because 2 guys had them pinned down. They were unable to do anything against superior fire power despite having significantly outnumbered the perpetrators.

Is the number police killed or wounded too low to justify having armored vehicles to protect them? Should we tell the spouses and children of police officers that cops can't have unarmed armored vehicles or as some mistakenly call them "tanks" because not enough cops die in shootouts to justify the added protection? Your arguments are getting better and better.

 

[Michchamp]

not sure when the idea that policework should be a risk-free occupation arose. the idea that any sort of abuse from police should be tolerated as long as it can be justified by improving police safety - no matter how rare the occasions it actually occurs- seems fucking insane to me, but then again, I'm not some authoritarian cop-lover who sits inside and gets all scared by the news, like spartanhack is apparently.

 

[Spartanmack]

not sure when the idea that policework should be a risk-free occupation arose. the idea that any sort of abuse from police should be tolerated as long as it can be justified by improving police safety, no matter how rare the occasions it actually occurs, but then again, I'm not some authoritarian cop-lover who sits inside and gets all scared by the news reports about crime, like spartanhack is apparently.

This is one of your all time dumbest posts. Since police work is inherently dangerous, cops must accept that risk and shouldn't be able to mitigate it by using armored vehicles. Unarmed, armored vehicles used by police for protection is a form of abuse by police. Classic.

 

[Michchamp]

This is one of your all time dumbest posts. Since police work is inherently dangerous, cops must accept that risk and shouldn't be able to mitigate it by using armored vehicles. Unarmed, armored vehicles used by police for protection is a form of abuse by police. Classic.

that's not what I'm saying at all, dumbfuck.

also, at least now you apparently concede the point on page 1 of this thread, since youre just arguing this one (bullshit) point about the militarization of police. that's progress.