Skip to main content

View Diary: Rep. Hank Johnson to introduce bill to stop providing military equipment to local police forces (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it's "1 Percent Doctrine" kind of thinking (24+ / 0-)

    Most of the people a police officer will run into in his career will run into will be unarmed, unarmored, untrained, etc. and aren't going to be any more dangerous than a small child throwing a tantrum.  Annoying as hell - and probably fixable with a little less-than-professionalism (if only the liberals would let us do that) - but a danger to life and limb?  No.

    It's the 1% who have real weapons and the will to use them that dominate the police's thinking.  So "if there's even a 1% chance of it happening, behave as if it's certain to happen".

    Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

    by Visceral on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 10:42:16 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Could be. But that's the pattern. (18+ / 0-)

      In 1970, there were 13 nations where the people were constitutionally weaponized. Now there are just two left.

      The rest are now failed states.

      This is the path we are on. And, when you think about it, this is what the American people want. They want a divorce from each other and the Federal government. They want to be armed to kill each other, law enforcement, and government officials -- when the time comes. They are prepping.

      I didn't write the rules, but I seriously doubt there are exceptions.

      They all end this way.



      For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
      - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

      by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 10:56:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Shorter: (20+ / 0-)

        The Second Amendment removes ALL civil liberties and rights.

        It's a choice that a society makes.

        You cannot have both.

        At the link I presented, above, you can read the case histories of nation after nation that made this discovery -- and how they dealt with the reality.

        Some wanted a society where the police didn't even carry guns (yes, there are plenty of them).

        How do you think they got there?

        There are only two ends on this see-saw. Weapon escalation or weapon de-escalation. Across the board.

        Americans have made their choice.

        (Of course, America didn't come into existence until after the invention of the gun. It's a genocide nation. So, it's not like the people have an inkling of what an unarmed civilization even looks like. So, they chose violence. The only thing they've ever known.)



        For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
        - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

        by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 11:12:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pluto (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo, Pluto, Phoenix Woman

          "Of course, America didn't come into existence until after the invention of the gun. It's a genocide nation." My god, that was insightful and revealing. And very true and scary. The cowboy mentality lives on ... When will John Wayne ever go away in our collective thinking?

          •  Guns are the source of all our riches (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phoenix Woman

            They are our security.

            They are our creation myth.

            (And, deep down, we are afraid that someone will do to us what we did to the people we exterminated. So life without guns is unthinkable for Americans.)



            For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
            - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

            by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 05:01:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We have digressed. (0+ / 0-)

            Where were the people crying about the 2nd amendment when Western towns of the past disarmed the citizens?

            Weren't the citizens smarter then, and realized it needed to be done for the safety of all?

            When did common sense become a thing of the past?

      •  Do you have a direct link for this? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, Rockys Mom, Kevskos, Jim Domenico
        In 1970, there were 13 nations where the people were constitutionally weaponized. Now there are just two left.

        The rest are now failed states.

        I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

        by Just Bob on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 11:40:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (4+ / 0-)

          You can take it or ignore it.

          I, myself, am thinking there were only 9 in 1970 rather than 13. I can't remember exactly. It might have been 13 in 1950.

          I can tell you that 2 years ago, there were three nations that were constitutionally weaponized. Now there are just two.

          The refugees from that failed nation are streaming across our southern border right now -- which is what happens when a state fails.



          For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
          - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

          by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 11:47:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Come to think of it, I believe it is covered (11+ / 0-)

            in the 2011 Small Arms Survey.

            There's a summary page here.

            The Small Arms Survey 2011: States of Security—the latest edition of an annual review of global small arms issues and themes, released on 6 July 2011—includes an analysis of the regulations governing civilian ownership of firearms in a sample of 42 jurisdictions (28 countries and 14 sub-national entities).

            The chapter’s findings indicate that national approaches to civilian firearm regulation turn on the question of whether civilian ownership is seen as a basic right or a privilege. Of the countries reviewed, in only two—the United States and Yemen—is ownership of firearms a citizen's basic right. Figures published in the Small Arms Survey 2007 show that the USA and Yemen also have the highest rates of firearms per civilian, with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people in the US, and 55 in Yemen.

            It's about 600 pages long.



            For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
            - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

            by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 11:53:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you - more (7+ / 0-)

              I wasn't challenging the statement. I just wanted something I could link to for future reference.

              I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

              by Just Bob on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 12:20:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, I know. (5+ / 0-)

                You triggered some thought about it. See, I also read constitutions as a hobby, so I remember this issue in that genre, as well. Constitutions are always being modernized (except in the US, where the constitution is obsolete as far as human, civil, and social rights go in the 21st century). So, sometimes I'll look at the state of comparative constitutions in the 1940s, for example. I recall such a paper in looking at the speed and frequency that nations began regulating arms and removing "rights" to guns from their constitutions. I believe in the late 1800s, nations began to shed such rights from their constitutions, and the shedding continued through WWII, until it was a very rare thing. Nations that hung onto gun "rights" after WWII tended to have unfortunate fates.

                And, now we are down to two.

                The US is a special case, though, because it is a genocide nation, founded on extermination via guns. And, it's constitution is an ancient slave-owner relic that provides no human rights. But guns were key for controlling slaves and merely an afterthought as far as emergency militias went.

                And, in this case, history is destiny if you don't evolve.



                For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

                by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 12:45:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  US constitution conceived as a minimalist document (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Just Bob, Pluto, vetter, Phoenix Woman

                  Whose purpose was only to outline the structure and powers of the federal government: to define the tool but not dictate its use.  What I perceive about more modern constitutions is their tendency to codify what the US Constitution either takes for granted or regards as matters of law or personal conduct beyond the "proper" scope of a constitution.  After all, many of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention saw a bill of rights as superfluous.

                  You see this in the tendency to look to amending the US Constitution as a "nuclear option" to settle issues once and for all and either create or foreclose vast expanses of behavior, explicitly on the part of the state and implicitly on the part of the people.

                  Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

                  by Visceral on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 01:45:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The US Constitution can no longer (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo, Heart of the Rockies

                    …be amended, so that is a moot point. It is correctly regarded as "entrenched." The barrier is too high in the 21st century.

                    Jefferson said it must be rewritten every 19 years -- because no living generation can be ruled by laws written by a dead generation. It kills generational sovereignty.

                    While I do believe in high courts, no one in the world pays attention to the US Supreme Court anymore. They were once held in high regard, but they are now irrelevant in the 21st century -- and rarely cited -- because they are bound by an obsolete and morally compromised agreement with an embarrassing bastard birth that no amount of patching can fix.



                    For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                    - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

                    by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 02:11:16 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Jefferson was a romantic (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Pluto

                      There's a pretty big gap between "living Constitution" thought that allows changes in interpretations (if not the words themselves) and "penumbras" and the punctuated equilibrium that Jefferson suggested.  I fear that the latter would be dangerously destabilizing: the fundamental relationship between citizens and the state totally redefined as many as three times within a human lifetime.  There's also simply no way that a constitution for the whole US could be written today, unless it was written by a narrow and homogeneous group and only sold to the rest of us.  A constitutional convention like that of 1787 would quickly degenerate into fragmenting of the Union and possible civil war, as attempts to form a government always do when there are such fierce divisions of identity and values amongst the people who are supposed to be governed by a single entity.  There's also the question of which of at least two living adult generations would be the one writing the laws by which all the others will live by: the young or the old?

                      Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

                      by Visceral on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 02:50:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yes, he was a romantic. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Visceral, JVolvo, Phoenix Woman

                        Of course, the human lifespan was much, much shorter when the relic was written with a feather on a sheep's ass. So, his 19 years probably made more sense back in those ancient times.

                        Otherwise, I so agree with you. It would be impossible to write a constitution for the entire US -- in no small part because we have a Civil War that has been actively raging for over 160 years.

                        It's pretty clear that the US will have to break up into autonomous regions in fairly short order. The nation simply cannot afford itself as it is and those pressures will intensify as parts of it revert to desert and die.

                        It's a conversation the country needs to have as soon as possible, but I can't think of a way to introduce the topic without everybody having a psychotic episode.



                        For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                        - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

                        by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 03:02:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  plenty on the right are happy to talk about it (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Pluto, Phoenix Woman
                          It's a conversation the country needs to have as soon as possible, but I can't think of a way to introduce the topic without everybody having a psychotic episode.
                          Plenty on the left too, but we tend to get caught up on the morality of sanctioning Wingnuttistan - we have to save all the conservatives too, you see ... "And what about all the liberals in Texas?!"  Practically speaking, the problems of partition are going to be managing the inevitable population transfers (and making sure aggressive ethnic cleansing doesn't break out, especially with an eye towards influencing where the borders get drawn), integrating millions of people who've shown up with only what they could carry, dealing with trade issues and the loss of tax revenues (the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire into 8 countries ignited a local depression), and in our case, dividing up the world's most powerful military.

                          Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

                          by Visceral on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 03:22:39 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I was thinking we could have (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kay3295, Phoenix Woman, raboof

                            …a consortium of Leaders in the Middle East come over and draw the borders for us. And oversee the transition.



                            For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                            - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

                            by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 03:52:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  if the point is to make sure it all blows up (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pluto, Phoenix Woman

                            Borders drawn by people ignorant of local identities, loyalties, and interests is what caused the problems in the Middle East.  Logically any borders they drew would have the same effect on us.  I don't know what you'd expect to achieve other than some weird kind of proxy revenge; if so, you're targeting the wrong people - the corpse of the Ottoman Empire was divided up by England and France.

                            New England, Greater NYC, Appalachia, the Black Belt, the Lowland South, North Cuba, Scandihoovia, the Driftless Area, Chicagoland, Farm Country, Cow Country, Cascadia, Mormonia, El Norte, Teksis, NorCal, the Bay Area, SoCal, Desert, Hawaii, Alaska, and that's just for starters.

                            Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

                            by Visceral on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 04:14:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I actually have an extensive collection (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Visceral, Phoenix Woman

                            ….of proposed maps of regions based on all sorts of demographics, economics, geography, and even global geopolitical connections. You are so knowledgeable about all of this, I would be very intrigued by your take. Many times I've wanted to publish them, but it's hard to frame it conversationally.

                            Meanwhile, your caveats, above, about divisions are really amped. There is no reason at all that there should be anything contentious about migration. There is every incentive for decency toward people; the punishment for a region being shunned economically would be too drastic to risk. Additionally, there would still be a general union, and all kinds of wonderful benefits for participating. Why do people always look upon things like this as a disaster rather than a joyous occurrence and a great deal of fun and friendly competition and hosting and tourism and celebration.

                            People are so terrified of change and creation these days. The US is a rich nation, and once the international murder-sprees cease, the people can enjoy their bounty together. Given the geography of the US, there is really no reason for an extensive military. It is the safest, most protected location on the planet.

                            This is the greatest folly and most profound waste in the history of mankind. It is the source for all the hardship that Americans suffer. And it can finally end:



                            For an idea that does not at first seem insane, there is no hope.
                            - Albert Einstein:  Leftist, socialist, emo-prog, cosmic visionary.

                            by Pluto on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 04:50:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I look at historical examples (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pluto
                            There is no reason at all that there should be anything contentious about migration. There is every incentive for decency toward people; the punishment for a region being shunned economically would be too drastic to risk. Additionally, there would still be a general union, and all kinds of wonderful benefits for participating.
                            In particular the partition of British India where millions of people died and millions more were displaced, and the slow breakup of former Yugoslavia.  Nobody was ordered to move, but many people felt that they had to anyway - or would want to eventually - since the countries being created were explicitly intended to be dominated by particular ethnic/religious groups.  At the end of the day, the US isn't hypothetically breaking up because we all like each other and get along great.  The hope is that we'll all be better neighbors than we've been roommates.

                            The "greater union" troubles me because it seems to defeat the purpose of partition.  It won't accomplish anything to create many out of one if we all end up with an EU-style transnational federation empowered to dictate policy to its constituent nations.  It would only become yet another forum for "think local, act global" conflict and manipulation by an elite or become even more hopelessly and uselessly gridlocked than Washington is now.  OTOH corporations hate borders and tight-knit "we really are all in the same boat" populations willing to defend them.  I would prefer a large number of narrowly targeted vehicles for cooperation; in my mind this would make the cooperation far more likely.

                            I would like to see your ideas for how this country really breaks down.

                            Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

                            by Visceral on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 07:21:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  A romantic AND a hypocrite (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Pluto

                          When he wrote that "all men are created equal", he reserved the thought that some are more equal than others.

                          If it's
                          Not your body,
                          Then it's
                          Not your choice
                          And it's
                          None of your damn business!

                          by TheOtherMaven on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 05:11:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

    •  There is a point to that. (0+ / 0-)

      And a lot of police never use force ever... in their entire careers, but until we have a population that isn't armed, we need police to have the ability to be armed as well. Plus, there are plenty of scenarios I can think of that the police  should have the authority to use deadly force, even if the the person is unarmed. This shoot just isn't one of them.

      •  political22 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Josiah Bartlett, kay3295, kfunk937

        Firing with deadly force needs to be rare and rarer still on an unarmed person. We appear to be having several killings of young black men since Zimmerman got away with murdering Trayvon Martin. It doesn't matter your skin color, I can see it has plain as the Caucasian nose on my face. Even Bill Cosby's son was murdered on an interstate. Michael Jordon's father was murdered at a rest stop. 40% of black males incarcerated when they only make up 12% of the population. Scaaaary ... if I were a young black male in this country.

        •  Vetter... I absolutely agree. (0+ / 0-)

          The use of police force especially on minorities is a huge problem in this country and deadly force should be extremely rare, even more so when a suspect is unarmed. I just question the thought process to make deadly force forbidden even in the case when a person is unarmed. There are certain situations where it potential could be necessary. None of the cases you have listed would seem to indicate it was necessary.

          Additionally, I agree our criminal justice system is extremely screw up, but it's only the symptom of a much larger problem. That problem is utter poverty. Poverty just breads poverty and thats the number one predictor of criminal behavior black or white. Unfortunately, blacks just get the harsher end of treatment of the criminal justice system thanks to laws and police practices that target them. Then again we allowed this to happen. We've allowed ourselves to basically buy the new spin on the old KKK myth that black men are all rapists and animals. In the words of Lewis Black "it's sad, but fucking true."

    •  It comes down to training (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto

      Police should train for black swan events.  Most training should reward prudence and discretion.  There are computer based video game like training simulators that can be programed around encouraging de escalation but also permitting training for when de escalation doesn't work.  Everyone wins.  Police get cheap quality training and are encouraged to escalate before they have to draw their service weapon.  

      I am not even going into requiring Police to live in the same jurisdiction they serve.  Or ending the supply of military armored cars to every tiny sheriff's dept.  There is a rare use case where an armored car would be beneficial such as the UT Clock Tower Shooting.  The other change I can think of is to make the department, not the municipality responsible for payouts from lawsuits.

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 04:11:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  professionalism? (0+ / 0-)

      "Annoying as hell - and probably fixable with a little less-than-professionalism (if only the liberals would let us do that) - "

      Liberals want police to follow the law and the Constitution!

      What do you consider to 'not be a danger to life and limb?"

      How would you consider something "fixable?"

      remember....even grabbing a person without legal cause is assault!

      Music is Mankind's Gift to Humanity

      by BobJustice666 on Sat Aug 16, 2014 at 03:07:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site