The Militarization of our Police Departments.

[Jesse]

The militarization is necessary since the powers that be want to turn America into a Latin American country. Brazil's police force is pretty much a miniature army fighting urban wars with the drug cartels. That's what they want to do in the US too: fracture the population (large multiracial groups is a very easy way to get this) so everybody hates and fears everybody and people are too busy worrying about tomorrow to put up a fight against the liberals' machinations.

I can see the reason why you would need that in places like Brazil and Columbia. I am not sure it is that bad here. We don't turn on the T.V. and see full blown wars being waged on our streets everyday. If we did, then I would understand it.

[Cow Poke]

I can see the reason why you would need that in places like Brazil and Columbia. I am not sure it is that bad here. We don't turn on the T.V. and see full blown wars being waged on our streets everyday. If we did, then I would understand it.

Come to the Texas border.

[Darth Executor]

I can see the reason why you would need that in places like Brazil and Columbia. I am not sure it is that bad here. We don't turn on the T.V. and see full blown wars being waged on our streets everyday. If we did, then I would understand it.

It's why I said that's what they want to do, implying a future time. But the US has one of (if not THE) worst murder rates in the first world, in large part due to the gang activity. Sure, there's no need to shoot drug lords from helicopters yet, but give it time.

[Jesse]

I don't know if there's as much abuse as you think.... we recently had an officer killed in a raid on a home -- it was the right house, the occupants had drugs and weapons, but our officer was killed, and the person who murdered him was "no billed" by the grand jury -- meaning it was ruled self defense, because the officer didn't identify himself loudly enough and long enough. He was heard yelling "POLICE", but he didn't CONTINUE yelling police, and his bulletproof vest only had the word "police" on it in a subdued font (for lack of a better word) in less than 2" high letters.

Our guys have frequent training sessions in which they are taught repeatedly to yell "POLICE" both loudly and continuously as they are doing their "dynamic entry". We want it so loud the neighbors will testify, "yeah, the cops were shouting 'POLICE' the whole time".

Well that is just stupid. I wouldn't fault the police for that. I do understand the police are in a lot of no win situations. I don't want you to think I feel that the police are running rampant, just shooting whomever they please. But with major crime rates going down, I don't see the real need for the ramping up (if you believe there are any). I could be wrong and there might not be as much as it seems. It does look like it though.

[Jesse]

Come to the Texas border.

Wouldn't you consider border towns a special case though, Cow Poke? Not every place is like that. So in places where you are fighting say, a drug war, I can see it.

[Jesse]

It's why I said that's what they want to do, implying a future time. But the US has one of (if not THE) worst murder rates in the first world, in large part due to the gang activity. Sure, there's no need to shoot drug lords from helicopters yet, but give it time.

So you believe that the police are ramping up for a future confrontation? If so, that would make sense.

[Darth Executor]

Well that is just stupid. I wouldn't fault the police for that. I do understand the police are in a lot of no win situations. I don't want you to think I feel that the police are running rampant, just shooting whomever they please. But with major crime rates going down, I don't see the real need for the ramping up (if you believe there are any). I could be wrong and there might not be as much as it seems. It does look like it though.

It's an illusion. Crime rates are low because the prison system is on overdrive. The militarized police force probably has something to do with that.

[Darth Executor]

So you believe that the police are ramping up for a future confrontation? If so, that would make sense.

Increasing confrontation. I doubt there will be a sudden burst, the number of criminals will simply continue to grow. As I said in my previous post, it's already been doing that for quite a while.

[Jesse]

It's an illusion. Crime rates are low because the prison system is on overdrive. The militarized police force probably has something to do with that.

But with the prison system letting go so many criminals because of "overcrowding", we should see crime rates spike. But they haven't.

[Cow Poke]

Well that is just stupid. I wouldn't fault the police for that.

But, technically, we screwed up in this situation. And our District Attorney, who is very PRO police, had to explain to the family of the deceased officer that the murderer was going to be "no billed" on the charge of capital murder of a police officer. It stinks, but ya gotta play by the rules.

I do understand the police are in a lot of no win situations. I don't want you to think I feel that the police are running rampant, just shooting whomever they please. But with major crime rates going down,

I think "Major Crime rates going down" may not be so accurate. I was in charge of our department's "Uniform Crime Reports" for a few years, and a lot of it is how things are CATEGORIZED, and whether they are actually considered a "qualifying incident". As somebody else pointed out, it is to the department's advantage to be able to say "under our watch, crime has decreased 47%" or whatever. Then, again, situations often exist where the crimes are often committed, but not reported due to a number of reasons. I don't trust the "Major Crime rates are going down" mantra.

I don't see the real need for the ramping up (if you believe there are any). I could be wrong and there might not be as much as it seems. It does look like it though.

It's kinda like Obama doing FEWER Executive Orders than his predecessors. Fewer in NUMBER, but not necessarily in IMPACT. Or, think about it this way... the Fort Hood shooting was categorized as "Workplace Violence" rather than "terrorism", which it clearly was. Why?

[Jesse]

Increasing confrontation. I doubt there will be a sudden burst, the number of criminals will simply continue to grow. As I said in my previous post, it's already been doing that for quite a while.

Yeah. I see what you mean.

[Cow Poke]

But with the prison system letting go so many criminals because of "overcrowding", we should see crime rates spike. But they haven't.

How do you know? What police department wants to report "Crime in our city has INCREASED by 37%"?

[Jesse]

But, technically, we screwed up in this situation. And our District Attorney, who is very PRO police, had to explain to the family of the deceased officer that the murderer was going to be "no billed" on the charge of capital murder of a police officer. It stinks, but ya gotta play by the rules.



I think "Major Crime rates going down" may not be so accurate. I was in charge of our department's "Uniform Crime Reports" for a few years, and a lot of it is how things are CATEGORIZED, and whether they are actually considered a "qualifying incident". As somebody else pointed out, it is to the department's advantage to be able to say "under our watch, crime has decreased 47%" or whatever. Then, again, situations often exist where the crimes are often committed, but not reported due to a number of reasons. I don't trust the "Major Crime rates are going down" mantra.



It's kinda like Obama doing FEWER Executive Orders than his predecessors. Fewer in NUMBER, but not necessarily in IMPACT. Or, think about it this way... the Fort Hood shooting was categorized as "Workplace Violence" rather than "terrorism", which it clearly was. Why?

I still don't get it. I've been around enough police and when they shout out who they are, you can't really mistake it for anything else. Now there have been plain clothes cops that have been shot for busting in an announcing they were cops. In that case, how would you know.

I don't know. It seems most of these statistics say the same thing even though they have different algorithms for coming up with their stats. I take some stock in that. I am not sure why police departments would fudge their numbers though to make them look better.

I get that. So you think most of this is all in the wording?

[Jesse]

How do you know? What police department wants to report "Crime in our city has INCREASED by 37%"?

Well I don't know. But if the stats are not coming from police departments, I guess I would give them the benefit of the doubt?

[Cow Poke]

Well I don't know. But if the stats are not coming from police departments, I guess I would give them the benefit of the doubt?

The Stats DO come from police departments -- on a standardized FBI "Uniform Crime Report". The problem is that federal funding comes from police departments affecting certain areas -- reducing assaults on gays and lesbians, or sexual assaults, or armed robberies.

It's entirely up to the local police department to categorize the "crime" as whatever they want. A sexual assault can become a case of stalking, or an armed robbery can become a case of theft. A Sheriff, for example, is an elected office, and he might run on reducing violent crime by 30%. He knows he's going to have to run for reelection, and he knows he's going to need to show a DECREASE in violent crime. So the crime can still be reported, but categorized as something other than a violent crime. An armed robbery can become a case of trespassing -- I've actually seen that one myself.

Then there's another angle.... some departments decline to take reports on certain activities. Or they simply don't follow up, and it doesn't take long for citizens to realize it's a waste of time to even report it. So, a crime can actually happen, but not get reported at all, or get "tallied" as something in another category.

The FBI compiles these statistics -- they have no way of knowing what the local PD or SO actually HAD -- they only know what was REPORTED.

The FBI then issues the stats, and the local Sheriff can hold up the FBI Crime Stats as proof he did a good job in office.

What's that old saying? "Liars figure, and figures lie". (or is it the other way around?)