pathetic USA, again
- Thread starter diehard
- Start date
Just as we saw in Patterson, Mo., American police are armed to the teeth. They've had virtually unlimited budgets for years now. US is becoming a police state. Harper's wet dream.
I've been served with a court order once by what looks like one of those correctional officers - he had his blue shirt, uniform pants, black boots, officer cap, bullet proof vest, and holstered pistol. He came to my office and peacefully handed it to me, and left.[/B]
Why not, what do you think would happen?? I'm curious? You know what, nothing would happen!!!
Neither of those are tanks.
Google "tank definition"
"a heavy armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track."
Neither of those is on a continuous articulated metal track. Also, while google doesn't include it, the military definition of tank requires it have a large bore cannon. Hence why IFVs, which are tracked and do have a cannon, are not considered tanks by the military, rather they're IFVs. But by any definition, military or civilian, neither of those things you linked (both of which are built on truck chassis), are tanks.
Yeah, I was wondering where the other poster saw a 'tank' in that arrest. More like armoured personnel carrier (although not quite - more like an armoured car).
Actually this is simply not true.Just as we saw in Patterson, Mo., American police are armed to the teeth. They've had virtually unlimited budgets for years now. US is becoming a police state. Harper's wet dream.
Most police budgets in the US have been cut in recent years, and training and hiring of officers is down. Thus numbers of officers is down.
A large proportion of these vehicles are actually surplussed from the US military and cost almost nothing. One of the reasons they have them...is because they are cheap and are considered a force multiplier of police forces with a lack of manpower because they cannot afford new hires.
Your comment about "virtually unlimited budgets" is simply ass backwards.
The officer in question would be going into a situation where there is a significant risk of violence without adequate protection.[/B]
Why not, what do you think would happen?? I'm curious? You know what, nothing would happen!!!
Take a moment and put yourself in the officer's shoes. You are being sent to serve a warrant on a guy who has been convicted of violent crimes, has called himself Adam Bin Ladin, and has used an axe in violent acts, and threatened to use an axe against his GF.
Would you not want to be well protected?
Or is the real meaning of this thread "It is okay to kill or injure cops."
I watched the video. Nobody got hurt, nobody got beaten. No BS at all. As far as I can tell the whole thing went perfectly.
Actually this is simply not true.
Most police budgets in the US have been cut in recent years, and training and hiring of officers is down. Thus numbers of officers is down.
A large proportion of these vehicles are actually surplussed from the US military and cost almost nothing. One of the reasons they have them...is because they are cheap and are considered a force multiplier of police forces with a lack of manpower because they cannot afford new hires.
Your comment about "virtually unlimited budgets" is simply ass backwards.
Government funding may be cut, but the police state is now being funded by police stealing money from travellers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/americ...rge-you-but-they-ll-grab-your-money-1.2760736
Police State? That's why Prosecutors and Judges are taking action? Methinks that you don't really understand the textbook meaning of Police State and are throwing the term around to mean police behaviour to which you object.Government funding may be cut, but the police state is now being funded by police stealing money from travellers.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/americ...rge-you-but-they-ll-grab-your-money-1.2760736
This sort of behaviour is not common in U.S. - Canadian border states.
Being served with a court order is not the same as serving a warrant. Court orders and summonses are just pieces of paper. They are served all the time by sheriffs in Canada and the US and even lowly civilian process servers. Warrants are active roles where police are there to accomplish something: an arrest, conduct a search, etc. two very different fish.I've been served with a court order once by what looks like one of those correctional officers - he had his blue shirt, uniform pants, black boots, officer cap, bullet proof vest, and holstered pistol. He came to my office and peacefully handed it to me, and left.
People like to use the words police state and martial law where not applicable because propaganda is a game of rhetoric. They try to conjure an image that will enrage others and flock them to their cause. Like when they call police jackbooted thugs. Aside from mounted ceremonial officers, have you ever seen a cop wearing jackboots?Police State? That's why Prosecutors and Judges are taking action? Methinks that you don't really understand the textbook meaning of Police State and are throwing the term around to mean police behaviour to which you object.
This sort of behaviour is not common in U.S. - Canadian border states.
