Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police

[thoughtomator]

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/



Anyone who thinks that race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. And the root of the problem is big government.

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:


Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.

It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.

The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:


Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (“‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.”) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?


Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.”

How did this happen?

Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.

There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.”

Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”

Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included.”

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.

Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.

[jct74]

Rand Paul: We Must Demilitarize the Police

Sen. Rand Paul
August 14, 2014

Anyone who thinks that race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. And the root of the problem is big government.

The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.

The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.

The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.

...

read more:
http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

[supermario21]

Pretty bold, and pretty dead on.

[invisible]

Excellent. Been waiting for the politicians to break the silence on this. First Amash, now Rand. Who else is going to stand up and lead?

[limequat]

My god, he nailed it.

I didn't want him to weigh in here, but I can't imagine a more perfect response.

[invisible]

My god, he nailed it.

I didn't want him to weigh in here, but I can't imagine a more perfect response.

I also feel it was perfect. This is EXACTLY what I was looking for out of our politicians, especially Rand.

[JK/SEA]

How about Random Drug Tests for ALL Police?....

it's time.

[supermario21]

Can't wait to see the outrage on the neocon/Todd Starnes right.

[jct74]

for retweeting...


499958503948439552

[Cap]

Good on Rand.

[mit26chell]

How about Random Drug Tests for ALL Police?....

it's time.

As long as the test includes a full panel of steroids, I'm on board with that! Steroids are rampant among police units. Rampant!

[mit26chell]

Rand posted this on his FB and could use some supportive comments. The usual bootlicking police defenders are out in full force claiming the police are not militarized at all and then there are others who claim they love the fact that police are militarized because they like being protected. Wtf! I hate people.

[jct74]

here the facebook link, at least vote up some positive comments if you don't have time to post your own.

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/posts/10152436787001107

[libertyjam]

Rand posted this on his FB and could use some supportive comments. The usual bootlicking police defenders are out in full force claiming the police are not militarized at all and then there are others who claim they love the fact that police are militarized because they like being protected. Wtf! I hate people.

Spin: The growing web Troll industry
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/spin-1/the-growing-web-troll-industry.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYqyDiB3EYM

[jllundqu]

Bump...

MSNBC is going to have a heart attack... A tea party conservatarian leading the way on issues of race, civil liberties, and police brutality???? What ever will the liberals do??

[supermario21]

If Rand can win the nomination I'll be surprised. My god the right can be so dumb....FOX News has been unwatchable the last week between all the Israel propaganda, the beating of the war drums in Iraq, and now this. And the comments on Rand's facebook make me want to vomit.

[CaptUSA]

It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.
Hell Yes! Thank you, Rand.

This one may well bite you in the rear, but it's worth it.

[Brett85]

Good for Rand on this.

[cajuncocoa]

Good article. I'm sharing it around.

[mad cow]

Pitch perfect.Good going,Rand.

[surf]

wonderful. well done. way to be a bold man, Rand.

[acptulsa]

Perfect. Way to, as the chess players say, seize the initiative!


MSNBC is going to have a heart attack... A tea party conservatarian leading the way on issues of race, civil liberties, and police brutality???? What ever will the liberals do??

The liberals will do what they always do--follow. The only question is, will they follow the good shepherd or will they continue to be fooled by that wolf?

[thoughtomator]

look who is following Rand's lead:

Claire McCaskill: ‘We need to demilitarize’

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/ferguson-claire-mccaskill-demilitarize-110013.html

[alucard13mm]

All liberals talk about is gays and race...

[jct74]

"Rand Paul" and "We Must Demilitarize the Police" are both trending on twitter right now.

[jtap]

This is well worth getting behind. Great stuff from Rand.

[twomp]

All liberals talk about is gays and race...

Same thing with the evangelicals. Good on Rand for putting this out. Paul SIXTEEN!!!

[presence]

Until you give me justice, you can't tell me about obeying or disobeying the law.

Dick Gregory 1965

from the TIME video at the link in OP.

[francisco]

My god, he nailed it...



My God, an actual Leader!

It's been a real long time since we've seen one of those (who had an actual shot at getting elected). Everyone here knows why I had to add the last qualifier clause.

[francisco]

"Rand Paul" and "We Must Demilitarize the Police" are both trending on twitter right now.


This is well worth getting behind. Great stuff from Rand.

It's really happening, guys and gals. Gotta get behind it in a big way, now.

[francisco]

here the facebook link, at least vote up some positive comments if you don't have time to post your own.

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/posts/10152436787001107


Rand posted this on his FB and could use some supportive comments. The usual bootlicking police defenders are out in full force claiming the police are not militarized at all and then there are others who claim they love the fact that police are militarized because they like being protected. Wtf! I hate people.

Done.

[menciusmoldbug]

Who Curb-Stomped Officer Friendly? (http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/08/14/curb-stomped-officer-friendly/)

[devil21]

Who Curb-Stomped Officer Friendly? (http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/08/14/curb-stomped-officer-friendly/)

Wow.


You can dance around this point all you like, but in cold light, there is no evading it permanently. Automatic rifles, APCs, tanks, gas, drones, helicopters, and ceramic plate armor are all necessary to maintain order in a society that is disorderly, culturally chaotic, and ridden by internal political conflict. Tyranny is the natural end point of the choices that Americans have made, and it ought not to be celebrated. Commanding the police to disarm while also demanding that they continue their impossible missions on behalf of the state is just as ill-fated a proposal.

Ill not argue the point made in the article that general apathy and ignorance has led to some of the country's ills, but that statement above cancels out any other logical points made. Not one mention is made that it is the gov't itself, through its' controller's intentional deceptions, corruption and urging on of general apathy, that is responsible for this situation in the first place. That article reeks of Hegelian Dialectic. "You asked for it, you got it!" Um no I did not. I did not ask for unenforced borders. I did not ask for insane foreign policy that leads to terrorism (9/11 oddities notwithstanding). I did not ask for a war on drugs. I did not ask for any of these things and most Americans, I believe, did not either. It was sold to them as solutions to problems the gov't created.


To end the tyranny, you must go after the original causes: chiefly, that the country is no longer governable as a single unit.

No. To end tyranny you remove the people responsible for it.

[jct74]

LOL


Rand Paul Stole The Idea To Demilitarize The Police From Democrats

By: Jason Easley and Sarah Jones
Thursday, August, 14th, 2014, 5:44 pm


Noted plagiarist Sen. Rand Paul wrote in an editorial today about the need to demilitarize the police. However, this wasn’t Paul’s own idea. Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson first wrote about his legislation in March.

...

When the situation in Ferguson, MO erupted, Rand Paul picked up Rep. Johnson’s idea and made it his own. Rep. Johnson announced today that he will be introducing his legislation. As Johnson pointed out in his article, the problem is that the Pentagon loves to give the surplus equipment to local law enforcement because it allows them to ask for more new equipment in next year’s budget.

The problem isn’t the Republicans’ favorite vague boogeyman “big government.” The real issue is their favorite form of welfare in disguise, which is military spending. Notice that Sen. Paul never once called out the Military Industrial Complex that is fueling this program. He can’t risk alienating Republican primary voters by looking like he is against a big red state job creator.

Democrats and liberals should not fall for Rand Paul’s act. The next original idea Sen. Paul has will be his first. The reason so many on the left like the idea of demilitarizing the police is because it first came from one of their own, Rep. Hank Johnson.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/14/rand-paul-stole-idea-demilitarize-police-democrats.html

[Feeding the Abscess]

Spin: The growing web Troll industry
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/spin-1/the-growing-web-troll-industry.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYqyDiB3EYM

Those aren't trolls. People really believe that.

[devil21]

Those aren't trolls. People really believe that.

Much more complicated than that and depends on how far one wants to drill down to define shilling. Is a "paid troll/shill" only a person that is specifically paid to push PR agendas? Or are paid shills also people that work in those industries that are advocating for their paychecks to keep coming, regardless of the impact of their industry (MIC, for example) on others.

[Cleaner44]

More of this is a good thing...

Democratic Congressman Will Introduce Police Demilitarization Bill
Rep. Hank Johnson pivots off Ferguson to introduce the “Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/democratic-congressman-will-introduce-police-demilitarizatio?utm_term=rbaj8n#a4sm5v

[satchelmcqueen]

good by rand!!

[Feeding the Abscess]

Much more complicated than that and depends on how far one wants to drill down to define shilling. Is a "paid troll/shill" only a person that is specifically paid to push PR agendas? Or are paid shills also people that work in those industries that are advocating for their paychecks to keep coming, regardless of the impact of their industry (MIC, for example) on others.

You can define troll or shill however you want. The majority of people who live in America feel that way, and they voice their opinion on social media.

[Crashland]

I guess I agree with Rand here? He is not very clear what he actually supports or doesn't support. Where do you draw the line between the gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control, vs. "military" gear which is supposedly inappropriate? What equipment specifically is being abused by police? How should the police have handled situations x, y, and z differently than they actually did in reality? Rand is cleverly at least engaging in the conversation about the situation in MO but I'm not seeing a whole lot of substance in his op ed.

[tangent4ronpaul]

AWESOME!

but I want to call him out on something...


It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.

So is Rand pro-fusion center / local spying y the cops...

those places are worthless!

worse, local and federal databases have merged. This is a real problem.

-t

[Anti Federalist]

Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.

Too late...

That said, well done Rand.

[Anti Federalist]

You can define troll or shill however you want. The majority of people who live in America feel that way, and they voice their opinion on social media.

This.

Boobus wants a police state, that much is overwhelmingly clear.

[devil21]

This.

Boobus wants a police state, that much is overwhelmingly clear.

I'd counter that Boobus likes the idea of security and safety. That means a police state but not a desire for a police state. Ask anyone if they want a police state. No one will say yes. The notion of safety was all good until the realities of what that entailed started to become reality. I understand that we're arguing semantics here but semantics was how it was sold and will also be (at least part of) how it is unsold.

It's the Frank Luntz school of swaying opinion.

[anaconda]

My god, he nailed it.

I didn't want him to weigh in here, but I can't imagine a more perfect response.

Nailed it indeed. Best op ed yet. I thought Rand would sit this one out. So I'm really pleased that he jumped into the fray.

[PaleoPaul]

What Rand's proposing is pretty modest in comparison to other jurisdictions. Hell, in the UK, for example, the cops don't even HAVE guns on them! Not even a one-shot pea shooter, let alone military grade equipment!

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I'd counter that Boobus likes the idea of security and safety. That means a police state but not a desire for a police state. Ask anyone if they want a police state. No one will say yes. The notion of safety was all good until the realities of what that entailed started to become reality. I understand that we're arguing semantics here but semantics was how it was sold and will also be (at least part of) how it is unsold.

It's the Frank Luntz school of swaying opinion.

Look at the reaction in Boston last year when the SWAT team/FBI "caught" the bomber. The public basically threw a parade for the police. They may not like the term "police state" but the American public (outside of the inner cities) loves the false sense of security the police provide, even if it comes at a cost to their civil liberties.

[malkusm]

I guess I agree with Rand here? He is not very clear what he actually supports or doesn't support. Where do you draw the line between the gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control, vs. "military" gear which is supposedly inappropriate?

What?

In what world do local police units need "gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control"?

[Crashland]

What?

In what world do local police units need "gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control"?

You would when the mob is breaking the law.

[Vanguard101]

If I call correctly, we didn't even want police. How is the idea stolen?

[Crashland]

All of us agree that the police should not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights, and should not interfere in any way with protesters who are not breaking the law. But what do you all suggest that the police do when you have a situation where you have riots where people are breaking the law, as in throwing rocks at people, vandalizing things, breaking windows and looting stores? Who should deal with that situation if not the police? Do you expect them to handle that with the same equipment they would normally use for handling individual lawbreakers?

[PaleoPaul]

All of us agree that the police should not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights, and should not interfere in any way with protesters who are not breaking the law. But what do you all suggest that the police do when you have a situation where you have riots where people are breaking the law, as in throwing rocks at people, vandalizing things, breaking windows and looting stores? Who should deal with that situation if not the police? Do you expect them to handle that with the same equipment they would normally use for handling individual lawbreakers?
I don't think Rand is proposing that we become like the UK where the cops don't even have guns on them.

[Crashland]

I don't think Rand is proposing that we become like the UK where the cops don't even have guns on them.

I don't think so either but that is the vibe I am getting here from others on the forum. I am trying to pin down where people draw the line between equipment that is appropriate vs. inappropriate.

[Smitty]

I suppose I'll be the odd man out here, but it doesn't seem like day 3 of rioting and looting is the most opportune time to be calling attention to, and finding fault with the excessive strength of the responding police.

[Brett85]

I suppose I'll be the odd man out here, but it doesn't seem like day 3 of rioting and looting is the most opportune time to be calling attention to, and finding fault with the excessive strength of the responding police.

But there have also been reports of the police using force against peaceful protesters, right?

[tangent4ronpaul]

All of us agree that the police should not infringe on anyone's first amendment rights, and should not interfere in any way with protesters who are not breaking the law. But what do you all suggest that the police do when you have a situation where you have riots where people are breaking the law, as in throwing rocks at people, vandalizing things, breaking windows and looting stores? Who should deal with that situation if not the police? Do you expect them to handle that with the same equipment they would normally use for handling individual lawbreakers?

How many stores did the cops prevent from getting looted. NONE!! That's right NONE!

How many stores didn't get looted because the owners and employees were standing in front of them with AR's and shotguns. LOTS!

I'm all for completely disarming the cops. Give um a taser and a rubber billy club like the UK. THe number of people and pets murdered by cops would drop to zero overnight. If you really need more there is this thing called the national guard....

-t

[Smitty]

I've heard that also. But the dominant story is looting and rioting.

I'm all for demilitarizing the police. But calling for it during looting and rioting is abysmally bad timing.

[Brett85]

I've heard that also. But the dominant story is looting and rioting.

I'm all for demilitarizing the police. But calling for it during looting and rioting is abysmally bad timing.

He was getting criticized by liberal websites for not speaking out on the subject, which I imagine is why he decided to write this editorial in Time magazine.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I suppose I'll be the odd man out here, but it doesn't seem like day 3 of rioting and looting is the most opportune time to be calling attention to, and finding fault with the excessive strength of the responding police.

OK, day 3... and the cops have now shot 2 people. The people are now throwing rocks and firebombs at the cops. Now who is driving this response. It's like the WoT - for every civilian you kill, you create 10 new terrorists. Perfect job security FTW! /sarc

-t

[Smitty]

It's never a good idea to allow the liberal media to shape the discussion.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I've heard that also. But the dominant story is looting and rioting.

I'm all for demilitarizing the police. But calling for it during looting and rioting is abysmally bad timing.

Stop watching the liberal lamestream media. Try AJAmerica, BBC America, RT, OANN and onine sources.

Especially stay away from FOX News, but Fox business is OK.

-t

[Crashland]

How many stores did the cops prevent from getting looted. NONE!! That's right NONE!
And if the police prevented 100 stores from getting looted, you wouldn't know it because they WEREN'T LOOTED!!!


How many stores didn't get looted because the owners and employees were standing in front of them with AR's and shotguns. LOTS!
Absolutely agree


I'm all for completely disarming the cops. Give um a taser and a rubber billy club like the UK. THe number of people and pets murdered by cops would drop to zero overnight. If you really need more there is this thing called the national guard....
It is the business of private citizens to protect their own property. It is the business of law enforcement to enforce the law. The two things overlap, but the private citizen is concerned with their property, and law enforcement is concerned with what to do with the lawbreakers.

[Smitty]

OK, day 3... and the cops have now shot 2 people. The people are now throwing rocks and firebombs at the cops. Now who is driving this response.

-t

It drove itself for 3 days. Who can say how long it would continue with no response?

At some point, the innocents on the receiving end of the riots deserve consideration and protection.

That doesn't mean that I agree with every method used to control the rioters, but after 3 days, a response is called for.

Rand picked a bad time to broach the subject of militarized police.

[Smitty]

Stop watching the liberal lamestream media. Try AJAmerica, BBC America, RT, OANN and onine sources.

Especially stay away from FOX News, but Fox business is OK.

-t

I don't rely on the propaganda box for anything except college basketball games. Occasionally, I'll catch an episode of Antiques Road Show.

[Crashland]

I've heard that also. But the dominant story is looting and rioting.

I'm all for demilitarizing the police. But calling for it during looting and rioting is abysmally bad timing.

The "dominant story" depends on what TV station you watch. Looting and rioting happens all the time when you have breakdowns like this. I think over time as the riots settle down, the police abuse of power on innocent civilians and the possible coverup story might dominate the coverage, even on FOX. Social media seems somewhat divided at the moment

[Smitty]

. Looting and rioting happens all the time when you have breakdowns like this.

No,...not really.

[r3volution 3.0]

Bump...

MSNBC is going to have a heart attack... A tea party conservatarian leading the way on issues of race, civil liberties, and police brutality???? What ever will the liberals do??

(a) Call him a racist for pandering to black people

(b) Call him a racist for not paying enough attention to black people

(c) All of the above, simultaneously, while emitting smoke from their ears

[r3volution 3.0]

I guess I agree with Rand here? He is not very clear what he actually supports or doesn't support. Where do you draw the line between the gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control, vs. "military" gear which is supposedly inappropriate? What equipment specifically is being abused by police? How should the police have handled situations x, y, and z differently than they actually did in reality? Rand is cleverly at least engaging in the conversation about the situation in MO but I'm not seeing a whole lot of substance in his op ed.

IMO, the problem isn't really the gear, it's the federal control.

[MRK]

I guess I agree with Rand here? He is not very clear what he actually supports or doesn't support. Where do you draw the line between the gear that might be appropriate for riot/mob control, vs. "military" gear which is supposedly inappropriate? What equipment specifically is being abused by police? How should the police have handled situations x, y, and z differently than they actually did in reality? Rand is cleverly at least engaging in the conversation about the situation in MO but I'm not seeing a whole lot of substance in his op ed.

Sounds like he's running to win; appealing to a constituency in spirit and not explicitly pissing off another constituency with the details. Lol

[orenbus]

I don't think so either but that is the vibe I am getting here from others on the forum. I am trying to pin down where people draw the line between equipment that is appropriate vs. inappropriate.

Well I can tell you a few pieces of equipment that should be universally considered inappropriate, two off the top of my head would be .50 Caliber Machine Guns and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. Why in God's green earth would any police department in this country need a .50 Cal machine gun?

http://www.rcsd.net/images/srt-peacemaker.jpg

http://www.rcsd.net/dept/specops-tactical.htm

http://reynosawatch.org/minstrel/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/a-gun.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html


Edit: Just for those that don't know what a .50 Cal can do here is an example basically it can turn any car into swiss cheese in a matter of seconds.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckklgMDZKJA

[Matt Collins]

Nailed it indeed. Best op ed yet. I thought Rand would sit this one out. So I'm really pleased that he jumped into the fray.

Well it makes sense politically.... the conservatives don't trust the government under Obama, and the people who are getting abused by the police in MO don't trust the government either.

[PaleoPaul]

BTW, the people bashing Rand on his FB page belong to the "OMG I CANT BELIEVE MY PRESIDENT IS A NEGRO!!!" crowd. In other words, an extreme minority.

[devil21]

Look at the reaction in Boston last year when the SWAT team/FBI "caught" the bomber. The public basically threw a parade for the police. They may not like the term "police state" but the American public (outside of the inner cities) loves the false sense of security the police provide, even if it comes at a cost to their civil liberties.

There were also a lot of people unhappy with the response but did you really expect the media to cover that reaction extensively? Most of the "parade" you were witnessing through media was college kids using the event as an excuse to go outside and have an impromptu party on the street. Review the pictures of those gatherings again and you'll see this to be true. Don't be misled by the media picking and choosing what to cover.

Why is practically every news article about DUI checkpoints full of negative comments about a police state and a loss of liberty? Why does practically every comment on an article about a weed arrest say that the laws are stupid and should be repealed? Most articles I've read about the STL shooting are full of negative comments about police conduct, that day and in general. People are starting to awaken to the realities of being in a police state and opinions are shifting as it becomes more invasive.

eta: the fact that Rand is receiving so much praise over this op/ed demonstrates the shift. Also, we (RPFers and associated libertarians) have been ahead of the curve warning about the police state so I think we're jaded on the topic. Most people just aren't as involved and vocal as we are.

[CPUd]

Why is practically every news article about DUI checkpoints full of negative comments about a police state and a loss of liberty? Why does practically every comment on an article about a weed arrest say that the laws are stupid and should be repealed? Most articles I've read about the STL shooting are full of negative comments about police conduct, that day and in general. People are starting to awaken to the realities of being in a police state and opinions are shifting as it becomes more invasive.



Maybe they are paid internet shills.

[thoughtomator]

BTW, the people bashing Rand on his FB page belong to the "OMG I CANT BELIEVE MY PRESIDENT IS A NEGRO!!!" crowd. In other words, an extreme minority.

The more extreme half of the neocons are pissed big time from what I am seeing... in part because the less extreme half doesn't seem to agree!

[devil21]

Maybe they are paid internet shills.

You would know, wouldn't ya.

[Smitty]

More today.

7000+ comments attached to the article at the time of this posting.

http://news.yahoo.com/police-protesters-clash-again-ferguson-085511380.html

[presence]

I think the best solution to this dilemma is mandatory castration to join a police force.

[francisco]

Bump...

MSNBC is going to have a heart attack... A tea party conservatarian leading the way on issues of race, civil liberties, and police brutality???? What ever will the liberals do??


(a) Call him a racist for pandering to black people

(b) Call him a racist for not paying enough attention to black people

(c) All of the above, simultaneously, while emitting smoke from their ears

You have to admit, it's entertaining to watch their reactions. Talk about cognitive dissonance! Bring popcorn.

Also: The individual reactions of those both on the left, and those on the "mainstream" right, are showing in sharp relief: who is willing to think independently and objectively, and who is just a sameoldsameold partisan hack on either side.

Once again, Rand is demonstrating, in a very concrete way, the noble thought that our member Deborah K put forth in her signature line: "Diversity finds Unity in the Message of Freedom"

[GunnyFreedom]

here the facebook link, at least vote up some positive comments if you don't have time to post your own.

https://www.facebook.com/RandPaul/posts/10152436787001107

I just raised a little hell on that thread. Effectively, I believe. :D

[Crashland]

One thing I haven't been hearing much about is why the police vehicle had no dash cam. The police department has enough money for military grade armored vehicles and riot gear, but they don't have enough money to equip dashcams or body cams? Ridiculous. Dash cams and body cams are common sense. Helps keep police accountable to the people AND helps the police when there are bogus claims.

[thoughtomator]

One thing I haven't been hearing much about is why the police vehicle had no dash cam. The police department has enough money for military grade armored vehicles and riot gear, but they don't have enough money to equip dashcams or body cams? Ridiculous. Dash cams and body cams are common sense. Helps keep police accountable to the people AND helps the police when there are bogus claims.

No cameras means no witnesses to contradict the cops when they yell "Stop resisting!" while they're beating the shit out of someone - a tactic we have very strong proof that this particular PD uses (they did it to a WaPo reporter!)

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think so either but that is the vibe I am getting here from others on the forum. I am trying to pin down where people draw the line between equipment that is appropriate vs. inappropriate.

I don't really disagree with you, but I do perceive a serious problem. Who is to say what the difference is between a riot and, say, the Whiskey Rebellion? Further, once a force is equipped to stop rioting or rebelling mobs, will they not seek out justifications to use that equipment, thus expanding and encroaching power in the exact way we all (supposedly) hate?

Finally, I would add that in the original Framer's model the quelling of such mega-riots would have been handled by the local citizens on the ground in their capacity as militia, and then the riots would not be quelled so much as property being protected from damage or looting, and let the riot run it's course.

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.

If every able-bodied soul were armed and had some experience at the militia, then the Mayor could have said, "A destructive riot is now in progress. All measures are authorized to the unorganized militia to defend against theft and looting. Unauthorized trespass will be considered intent to loot." you could lay in a covered defense behind storefronts and just drop anybody that breaks in. pretty soon everyone else will get the message: riot all you want but break into property and you die. It won't be long if that becomes the common practice, where people riot all the time with almost no real property damage. Which frankly would be fine by me. Let people outrage. It is their right as Americans. Don't let them destroy people's property when they do.

IF we had a proper unorganized militia, then the actual police would only ever need to get barely over Andy Griffith. For anything really big just co-op with the local militia which would do the double-duty of ensuring that said action(s) had the real sanction of the public.

We of course do not have such a thing today, and in this age the question of what to do in an actual destructive riot is a lot more perplexing. Asking to police to quell riots (put down insurrections) is pretty much equivalent to asking for encroaching abuse and eventual tyranny. Until we can fix the underlying problems in the balance of power, perhaps a bridge over the gap would be deploying the National Guard in a "defense of property only" role with a similar ROE to the militia I described above.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd counter that Boobus likes the idea of security and safety. That means a police state but not a desire for a police state. Ask anyone if they want a police state. No one will say yes.

I disagree.

I saw with my own eyes, a whole city turn out and applaud being locked down and frog marched at gun point out of their homes, for what amounted to, in the end, nothing.

http://i57.tinypic.com/23qyrg7.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Chucky "FlashBang" Schumer.

http://flashbangschumer.com/

At the (Waco) hearing Schumer asked Dick DeGuerin, one of Koresh's lawyers, if it was true that the Davidians were stockpiling grenades. DeGuerin said the only grenades he had seen at Mount Carmel were the ones BATF agents tossed in during their raid.

A startled Schumer insisted that the "flashbang" grenades used by the BATF-- which create a bright flash and a loud noise to distract and disorient the enemy--are not really grenades.

Later he contemptuously dismissed DeGuerin's testimony: "Mr. DeGuerin said flashbangers can kill, injure, maim. Anyone who knows anything about these things knows they can't."

http://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/1440617_1401421287-1583.jpg?w=640&h=424

[Occam's Banana]

You have to admit, it's entertaining to watch their reactions. Talk about cognitive dissonance! Bring popcorn.

Also: The individual reactions of those both on the left, and those on the "mainstream" right, are showing in sharp relief: who is willing to think independently and objectively, and who is just a sameoldsameold partisan hack on either side.

Once again, Rand is demonstrating, in a very concrete way, the noble thought that our member Deborah K put forth in her signature line: "Diversity finds Unity in the Message of Freedom"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458057-Steele-Rand-Paul-is-most-dangerous-man-in-politics-right-now-to-break-left-right-paradigm

Steele: Rand Paul is most dangerous man in politics right now to break left-right paradigm

Michael Steele and Peter Suderman on Up with Steve Kornacki - MSNBC 8/17/14


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ix1EKybQI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_ix1EKybQI

[Occam's Banana]

Okay, people! This post deserves a lot more rep than any one of us can give it - so pony up, everybody ...


I don't really disagree with you, but I do perceive a serious problem. Who is to say what the difference is between a riot and, say, the Whiskey Rebellion? Further, once a force is equipped to stop rioting or rebelling mobs, will they not seek out justifications to use that equipment, thus expanding and encroaching power in the exact way we all (supposedly) hate?

Finally, I would add that in the original Framer's model the quelling of such mega-riots would have been handled by the local citizens on the ground in their capacity as militia, and then the riots would not be quelled so much as property being protected from damage or looting, and let the riot run it's course.

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.

If every able-bodied soul were armed and had some experience at the militia, then the Mayor could have said, "A destructive riot is now in progress. All measures are authorized to the unorganized militia to defend against theft and looting. Unauthorized trespass will be considered intent to loot." you could lay in a covered defense behind storefronts and just drop anybody that breaks in. pretty soon everyone else will get the message: riot all you want but break into property and you die. It won't be long if that becomes the common practice, where people riot all the time with almost no real property damage. Which frankly would be fine by me. Let people outrage. It is their right as Americans. Don't let them destroy people's property when they do.

IF we had a proper unorganized militia, then the actual police would only ever need to get barely over Andy Griffith. For anything really big just co-op with the local militia which would do the double-duty of ensuring that said action(s) had the real sanction of the public.

We of course do not have such a thing today, and in this age the question of what to do in an actual destructive riot is a lot more perplexing. Asking to police to quell riots (put down insurrections) is pretty much equivalent to asking for encroaching abuse and eventual tyranny. Until we can fix the underlying problems in the balance of power, perhaps a bridge over the gap would be deploying the National Guard in a "defense of property only" role with a similar ROE to the militia I described above.

[XNavyNuke]

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.


Lots of rioting and looting in our history, even before the revolution. Sometimes it is the only way to highlight the injustices handed down by perfumed princes. A good pre-revolution example would be the North Carolina Regulator Movement.

XNN

[devil21]

I disagree.

I saw with my own eyes, a whole city turn out and applaud being locked down and frog marched at gun point out of their homes, for what amounted to, in the end, nothing.

http://i57.tinypic.com/23qyrg7.jpg

I meant literally go ask someone if he/she wants to live in a police state. No one will say yes.

Don't mistake a party for a demonstration. People run outside when their NFL team wins the Super Bowl and do the same thing. That same paper said THANK YOU SEAHAWKS in January. Both groups experienced the same amount of impact in their daily lives. None, at that moment other than a quick buzz. Just supporting the winning team at that moment. That's the reality of it.

[extortion17]

"Rand Paul" and "We Must Demilitarize the Police" are both trending on twitter right now.


http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/rand2016cblue_zps6eb5f890.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/rand2016cblue_zps6eb5f890.jpg.html)

[Todd]

I disagree.

I saw with my own eyes, a whole city turn out and applaud being locked down and frog marched at gun point out of their homes, for what amounted to, in the end, nothing.



Yep.

[Carlybee]

I don't really disagree with you, but I do perceive a serious problem. Who is to say what the difference is between a riot and, say, the Whiskey Rebellion? Further, once a force is equipped to stop rioting or rebelling mobs, will they not seek out justifications to use that equipment, thus expanding and encroaching power in the exact way we all (supposedly) hate?

Finally, I would add that in the original Framer's model the quelling of such mega-riots would have been handled by the local citizens on the ground in their capacity as militia, and then the riots would not be quelled so much as property being protected from damage or looting, and let the riot run it's course.

Sociologically, it is always healthier to let outrage run it's course. It's when you try to bottle it up that it turns into a pressure cooker.

If every able-bodied soul were armed and had some experience at the militia, then the Mayor could have said, "A destructive riot is now in progress. All measures are authorized to the unorganized militia to defend against theft and looting. Unauthorized trespass will be considered intent to loot." you could lay in a covered defense behind storefronts and just drop anybody that breaks in. pretty soon everyone else will get the message: riot all you want but break into property and you die. It won't be long if that becomes the common practice, where people riot all the time with almost no real property damage. Which frankly would be fine by me. Let people outrage. It is their right as Americans. Don't let them destroy people's property when they do.

IF we had a proper unorganized militia, then the actual police would only ever need to get barely over Andy Griffith. For anything really big just co-op with the local militia which would do the double-duty of ensuring that said action(s) had the real sanction of the public.

We of course do not have such a thing today, and in this age the question of what to do in an actual destructive riot is a lot more perplexing. Asking to police to quell riots (put down insurrections) is pretty much equivalent to asking for encroaching abuse and eventual tyranny. Until we can fix the underlying problems in the balance of power, perhaps a bridge over the gap would be deploying the National Guard in a "defense of property only" role with a similar ROE to the militia I described above.

Part of the solution also is the ability to defund these police departments but I think DHS works with them and gives them grants beyond just providing the military gear. Some of this needs to start at the local level. If your city officials and mayors are allowing it to happen, changes need to occur.