View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Ferguson events raise troubling concerns

Posted: August 25, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: August 25, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Smoke slinks across pavement in the darkness, cries from gassed citizens fill the air, people break into a McDonald’s to provide milk-based relief to a person hit with tear gas, sound weapons pass levels that cause permanent damage, police shoot pellets at journalists.

This time, you have not entered the Twilight Zone or the Gaza Strip. Rather, you’ve entered the streets of a Missouri community on the night of the Aug. 17.

Nine days after 18-year-old Michael Brown was fatally shot by Officer Darren Wilson, reports from Ferguson focused on the excessive tactics being implemented by the police.

Wilson has not been charged or even detained in the killing of Brown, despite an autopsy report, among other evidence, that indicates initial witness reports were correct.

Brown was surrendering, arms extended in pacifism, and was shot fatally after receiving several bullets to other parts of his body, the report indicated.

The body was left on the street for hours.

However, the violence was not the only troubling thing to occur last week in Ferguson. Some of the most disturbing realizations to come to light may be the proof that we are living in a police state and that a lot of people don’t seem to care.

Rallies in support of Ferguson have been held throughout the country, and yet I am still encountering people who haven’t even heard of the community.

On the second night of curfew, Aug. 17, officers in Ferguson began riot response hours before the curfew went into effect, giving approximately five second of warning before implementing tear gas and flash bang grenades.

Lights were shut off on the streets, reporters were arrested and threatened by officersnot wearing name plates. All of this came two hours before the state-mandated curfew. 

This is outrageous and should be angering all Americans. Our police are breaking laws and constitutional amendments; where is the national outrage?

Missouri’s governor called in the Missouri National Guard. The president has sent the attorney general to the state to deal with the unrest.

Amnesty International sent a delegation to the Missouri community and has called for an investigation into Brown’s death.

SWAT teams are being released in daily police work around the nation and more than 500 local police agencies are equipped with mine-resistant, military grade vehicles (MRAPS).

The Ferguson Police Department is one of the local departments given surplus military equipment, including the MRAPS and automatic weapons, thanks to the DoD 1033 program.

America’s police are becoming increasingly militarized and the results are grim. An overhaul of the system is needed; we are citizens, not prisoners of the state.

This should terrify you; it should terrify everyone. The police are exerting more power than they should ever have been given, and the outrage is concentrated.

And yet neither has taken the time to support the community of Americans in Ferguson who were left to live among smoke and turmoil.

Police are being outfitted with military equipment, breaking laws and protocol, threatening and silencing journalists, and tear-gassing civilians here and now.

The events of Ferguson may feel far away to other Americans, but these crimes against human rights aren’t happening in the Ukraine or Iraq this time.

They’re happening in the United States of America.

Mallory Fencil is a Valencia resident and a student at California State University, Northridge.

Comments

OldReliable: Posted: August 25, 2014 8:41 a.m.

The facts are not in, but this incident goes deeper than law enforcement's efforts to contain a rioting public of mainly out-of-towners. It's clear that this entire episode began with a very large man burglarizing and bullying a small business owner whose business was looted and burned in the aftermath.


ricketzz: Posted: August 25, 2014 9:36 a.m.

I don't think the store that was torched was the same one he got the blunts from. We don't know what kind of relationship the victim had with the store clerk. There may be some kind of dynamic at play of which we are not privy to.

Our local police have been ordered to be brutal against citizens who gather to demand a redress of their grievances. They infiltrate demonstrators. They try to get them to commit violence and arrest them if they comply. They entrap. They are on the side of the rich. This ain't about black people; it's about everyone who has a legitimate gripe against the 1% and their jackbooted thugs.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 25, 2014 10:52 a.m.

The only troubling thing here is the author's lack of facts and disturbing bandwagon mentality.

Michael Brown was a strong armed robber and he was no child, he was a 6'4, 300 pound man who was attacking a police officer after committing a strong armed robbery. The police officer had his orbital socket blown out by being punched by this huge a.h. and Brown deserved every last bullet that entered his criminal body.

Police have a duty to defend property and life by neutralizing a threat and they did exactly that in quelling the disturbances that were occurring night after night. This writer is pathetic. Oh cry me a river, the looters got pepper sprayed! If you were one of the store owners losing their entire life savings, believe me you, you would be thrilled the cops were there in force, as they should be.

Police have been getting excess military equipment since the beginning of time, most of it is just extra regular gear. Very little of it is actual weaponry, etc. and contrary to the police reports, I don't know of ANY l.e. agency anywhere that has access to fully automatic weapons EXCEPT for SWAT teams, which absolutely should have them. Since 9/11 and incidents like the N Hollywood bank robbery when officers were severely outgunned, they have beefed up some of their weapons and tactics, rightfully so. I want a police force that can handle whatever comes their way in order to protect the citizens and community.


chico: Posted: August 25, 2014 11:46 a.m.

It's got to be embarrassing to have written a piece, and between the time you submit it and it get's published, the truth comes out.

You need a preconceived set of notions about police to believe the media driven narrative.

To me, it's unrealistic that anyone, other than the insane, shoots a surrendering man 6 times.


chico: Posted: August 25, 2014 11:52 a.m.

The cop's life is ruined, his family, the local businesses....for what?

A media narrative?

Pathetic.

I wish the media would stop making stuff up for liberal causes, it hurts people.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 12:38 p.m.

My $0.02.

I find this Guest Column interesting because it combines some legitimate (IMO) issues with a lot of media hype.

I think there is a legitimate concern about the "militarization" of local cops, and their developing adversarial (in some areas) relationship with the citizens they're sworn to "protect and SERVE".

When I see unformed street cops wearing full battle dress, their faces covered with balaclavas, I have to wonder what's going on.

When I was in Vietnam, we wore less equipment than street cops do now, and we were in a combat zone. The only reason I can see that justifies a cop concealing his face with a balaclava is if he's actively working undercover. Otherwise it's completely unwarranted. TERRORISTS wear balaclavas. Why are street cops doing it?

On the other side of the coin, there seems to be a cultural divide in this country by which people on one side seem to think that any time a member of "their" group is injured or killed by a cop, "their guy" is always blameless, and therefore rioting and looting is a justified response.

That divide seems to be separating poor minority groups from mainstream society.

We saw the same thing happen during the "Rodney King Riots" right here in SoCal. It turned out that King was a bad dude who refused to submit to arrest, and it took a serious beatdown to get him into custody, but by the time all the actual truth came out the damage was done. Same deal with Trayvon Martin, and now this thug in Missouri.

Compare that to the outcome when the ridiculous verdict in the OJ Simpson murder case was rendered. Was there rioting and looting in the streets of Beverly Hills?

Of course not.

I think this is a vicious circle created and exacerbated by the mainstream media's and the Left's predisposition to focus on and create a climate of separation and "victimhood", and it's very destructive to a peaceful society.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 12:59 p.m.

"I think there is a legitimate concern about the "militarization" of local cops, and their developing adversarial (in some areas) relationship with the citizens they're sworn to "protect and SERVE".

When I see unformed street cops wearing full battle dress, their faces covered with balaclavas, I have to wonder what's going on.

When I was in Vietnam, we wore less equipment than street cops do now, and we were in a combat zone. The only reason I can see that justifies a cop concealing his face with a balaclava is if he's actively working undercover. Otherwise it's completely unwarranted. TERRORISTS wear balaclavas. Why are street cops doing it?"

For once, I agree with Baker.

Many years ago, family and friends who were in law enforcement and the justice system were warning about the increased behavior of police as soldiers, the military-grade hardware they were starting to use, the "combat fatigue" style of uniforms, etc. They were of the opinion that police were starting to act like the military, and they two things were quite different, and that having cops dress and act like soldiers was a dangerous thing.

Now we see that they were right...give cops heavy weaponry and hardware, and they just HAVE to find a reason to use it.


AlwaysRight: Posted: August 25, 2014 1:25 p.m.

Guys- this is a young lady who is a college student. While I think that many of the facts of the case are still unknown, I applaud her willingness to write a piece for the Signal and express her views.

Well done, Mallory!


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 1:26 p.m.

"Very little of it is actual weaponry, etc. and contrary to the police reports, I don't know of ANY l.e. agency anywhere that has access to fully automatic weapons EXCEPT for SWAT teams, which absolutely should have them."

You need to do more research. Plenty of weapons, including automatic rifles and grenade launchers. (Grenade launchers? Seriously? Who thinks cops need this sort of thing, or "mine-resistant vehicles", etc.)?


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 1:31 p.m.

Speaking of SWAT teams, and how when you give the cops a "tool", they'll find a reason to use it...

The military provided lots of military equipment to local PDs, who then created SWAT teams and then "discovered" reasons to use them.

"Police conduct up to 80,000 SWAT raids a year in the U.S., up from 3,000 a year in the early ‘80s. That’s according to criminologist and researcher Peter Kraska. But according to a recent study by the American Civil Liberties Union, almost 80 percent of SWAT team raids are linked to search warrants to investigate potential criminal suspects, not for high-stakes “hostage, barricade, or active shooter scenarios.” "

http://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-the-federal-push-to-militarize-local-police


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 1:33 p.m.

The proliferation of paramilitary federal SWAT teams inevitably brings abuses that have nothing to do with either drugs or terrorism. Many of the raids they conduct are against harmless, often innocent, Americans who typically are accused of non-violent civil or administrative violations.

Take the case of Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., who was “visited” by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud.

The year before the raid on Wright, a SWAT team from the Food and Drug Administration raided the farm of Dan Allgyer of Lancaster, Pa. His crime was shipping unpasteurized milk across state lines to a cooperative of young women with children in Washington, D.C., called Grass Fed on the Hill. Raw milk can be sold in Pennsylvania, but it is illegal to transport it across state lines. The raid forced Allgyer to close down his business.

Brian Walsh, a senior legal analyst with the Heritage Foundation, says it is inexplicable why so many federal agencies need to be battle-ready: “If these agencies occasionally have a legitimate need for force to execute a warrant, they should be required to call a real law-enforcement agency, one that has a better sense of perspective. The FBI, for example, can draw upon its vast experience to determine whether there is an actual need for a dozen SWAT agents.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 1:39 p.m.

Yep, guys, and we all know what happened at Ruby Ridge and Waco.


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 1:39 p.m.

US crime rate at lowest point in decades. Why America is safer now.

The crime rate for serious crimes, including murder, rape, and assault, has dropped significantly since the early 1990s in part because of changes in technology and policing, experts say.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 1:45 p.m.

But, hey, if they toss a grenade into your kid's crib and burn him, it's all okay...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid/

BTW, they're not paying for the child's medical bills, either. Too bad, so sad, for the family.

Note that they didn't find anything in the house, either.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:00 p.m.

"The crime rate for serious crimes, including murder, rape, and assault, has dropped significantly since the early 1990s in part because of changes in technology and policing, experts say."

Interesting...nowhere in there did it say that militarizing the police was a factor. Didn't even mention it in the article.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:10 p.m.

I think his point may have been that police militarization isn't necessary for the crime rate to be successfully addressed.

A point with which I'd agree, if that was the case.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:16 p.m.

So would I, if that's his point.


17trillion: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:25 p.m.

"The crime rate for serious crimes, including murder, rape, and assault, has dropped significantly since the early 1990s in part because of changes in technology and policing, experts say."


Actually it's none of those things. The crime rate is down because of the proliferation of abortion. When did abortion become legal? When did the crime rate start falling significantly?


Nitsho: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:35 p.m.

I agree 100% with, and this pains me to say, Steve on this.

This is the poster child of why they should be demilitarized.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/20/police-officer-suspended-for-pointing-rifle-at-protesters-threatening-them/

At least he was suspended. Had this not been on tape, he would still be on patrol.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:44 p.m.

Actually, 17trill, the linked article makes that same point.


Unreal: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:54 p.m.

This writer may be young but it is no excuse for inaccurately recounting facts.

There are some "eye witnesses" who say he had his hands up and there was no struggle with the officer". Nothing corroborates this so far, as a matter of fact the condition of the officer (fractured eye socket) seem to say this account is untrue if not a blatant lie.

There are also other eye witnesses who say there was a struggle and that afterwards Michael Brown charged the officer.
These accounts of the witnesses who stated there was a struggle before the shooting seem to be more factual as the officer was taken to the hospital with facial fractures.

I saw Dr. Baden once at the initial press conference with the attorneys for the family say that he was unable to tell if the hands were up or not and would need to see clothing and other items to attempt to tell.
He again appeared on several talk shows and stated he was unable to provide ANY info that corroborates the families assertions.

Dr. Baden did say that the last shot which was to the top of the head was the one that killed him instantly.

As far as how it was initially handled by the local police, I think the body would stay out for a long time while the initial investigation went on.

I do not like to see the military tactics used by local police initially.

I also do not like to see out of area activists, or those supposed voices for the people (hot air) fanning the flames of hate or the media acting like sharks to cover the story.

Anytime a young person dies it is sad even if it is a result of his own bad behavior. I wish he had just let the officer handcuff him.
I hope even though he was acting out at the time of his death that he did know Jesus as his family says he did. You can be a sinner and still be saved and I hope this young man is in heaven.

I am pretty even handed in how I judge these type of stories. For instance I am totally against the cop who punched the crap out of the women on the freeway. This one so far has me leaning in favor of the officer. But there is still time for more facts to come out so everyone should hold off on making declarations about what happened.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:58 p.m.

It doesn't actual "make that same point". It says that it's an "additional theory" (misusing, as always, the word "theory"), but then goes on to state:

"But [Prof. James Allen] Fox's own analysis shows that such conclusions discount the significant decline in serious crime among age groups that would have been born prior to that landmark court decision. "It's an interesting concept with some intuitive appeal, but I think they've overstated the case," says Fox."

What I find amusing about the abortion-prevents-crime hypothesis is that, if true, the restrictions on abortion and abortion providers that the right wing is pushing through state legislatures should, in a few years, result in higher crime rates in those states. Of course, that will give them all the more reason to even *further* militarize police forces...


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 2:59 p.m.

"So would I, if that's his point."

Noting my prior post to that one, that is exactly my point.

SWAT Teams in various agencies pursuing student loans and unpasteurized milk? Seriously?

With the Posse Comitatus Act in mind, we don't require standing armies to perform routine community policing. Nor should local and state agencies act as a military force.

I understand some use cases for exceptions such as breaching/clearing/snipers for hostage rescue or managing barricaded suspects that present a threat to life.

In case of massive civil unrest, the State Executive (Governor) has the National Guard in reserve. --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:16 p.m.

Yeah, tech, I had your prior comment in mind, so that's why I was pretty sure that was your point.

I also agree with absolutely everything you wrote in that last comment. Well said.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:31 p.m.

I agree with you. I don't even think you need to look at other agencies to make the argument, though. I would like to see *local* police agencies (local PDs, sheriffs, state police, etc.) "demilitarized". The stories about big federal agencies are certainly good for news articles and all, but it's the constant, continuous militarization of *local* police that's equally a problem.

The pictures from Ferguson are merely a snapshot of what we've allowed our cops to become. Dressed in military attire, with body armor, riding on top of military vehicles and pointing high-powered assault rifles at civilian protestors?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article20056156.ece/BINARY/w620/XNYT143_MO_TEEN_SHOOTING_10.JPG

Is this what we want from our law enforcement agencies?


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:33 p.m.

Nope. It ain't. Plain and simple.


AlwaysRight: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:36 p.m.

I see Jackson and Sharpton made it to the funeral today....


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:37 p.m.

BTW...absolutely *nothing* will change here, of course. Much like the gun control "debates", there will be a lot of talk, and a lot of ink, but nothing will change.

The cops will continue to get military hardware from DoD. They'll find more excuses to use it. No politician will ever vote to either limit the program which transfers grenade launchers and armored vehicles to police departments. Even if they did vote for something like that, it won't pass Congress because they can't get crap done (and no politician wants to be "soft on crime").

The cops will continue to escalate their "us vs. them" mentality. The whole Missouri episode will fade from memory in a few months, and it'll be back to business as usual for them. Out of the spotlight, with no cameras and no media, they'll just go back to their tactics of intimidation, albeit on a more one-on-one basis with whomever they come into contact.

We'll see more YouTube videos of cops screaming at innocent kids at checkpoints (like the one from a few months back...btw, wanna bet that cop didn't suffer any penalty and is still on the job), or the occasional cop beating the tar out of someone, but overall...

Nothing will change.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:38 p.m.

"Nope. It ain't. Plain and simple. "

Well, we got it, and it ain't going away. Guaranteed.


17trillion: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:38 p.m.

"Is this what we want from our law enforcement agencies?"

No, and it's nice that we appear to have universal agreement on the matter.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:39 p.m.

How about all the cops refusing to provide their names, or covering their badges? Think anything will happen to them?

Naaaaaah....


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:52 p.m.

I agree that it's an ongoing problem. That's exactly why I raised the issue, obviously.

Is there a solution? Maybe. But it'll take political will that I have no confidence is actually present anywhere.

Cops and firemen have become rock stars since 9/11, when they suddenly became "first responders", a great PR stroke. Whoever dreamed up that label should be getting residual checks from every PD, sheriff's office and fire department in the country.

It's part of human nature that when people get put up on a pedestal, many of them begin to believe their own hype. They need to be disabused of the notion that they're infallible little "gods", and put their pants on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.

That'll take the political will of mayors and city councils and police commissions to order them to act like cops instead of storm troopers.

I remember the uproar during the 1968 Dem nominating convention in Chicago, when the Chi-town PD went all caveman on the demonstrators. The entire country was scandalized.

They were teddy bears compared to what commonly happens nowadays.



stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 3:58 p.m.

"That'll take the political will of mayors and city councils and police commissions to order them to act like cops instead of storm troopers."

AHAHAHAHA! Good one!

See, the cops don't show up at town halls and city councils dressed like some sort of Special Forces unit, replete with high-caliber armaments and facemasks and body armor and all that.

Nope...the Captain shows up in a nice, tidy blue uniform, perhaps with a little shoulder insignia, and he speaks nice and friendly to the council members and tells them how his men are "serving and protecting the citizens" and all. And then everyone pats them on the back, and they all go away, and the cops go right back to being petty tyrants who never face any consequences for their actions.

Political will...that's *funny*, man.


17trillion: Posted: August 25, 2014 4:07 p.m.

"Cops and firemen have become rock stars since 9/11"

Don't forget the teachers Brian!


Nitsho: Posted: August 25, 2014 4:10 p.m.

"Is this what we want from our law enforcement agencies?"

"No, and it's nice that we appear to have universal agreement on the matter."

Yep. It's rare these days.

"With the Posse Comitatus Act in mind, we don't require standing armies to perform routine community policing. Nor should local and state agencies act as a military force.

I understand some use cases for exceptions such as breaching/clearing/snipers for hostage rescue or managing barricaded suspects that present a threat to life.

In case of massive civil unrest, the State Executive (Governor) has the National Guard in reserve."

Totally agree Tech.
And I agree with Steve. Nothing will happen about it. Once they have their toys, they won't want to give them back.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 25, 2014 4:23 p.m.

Brian,

I differ with you on the rockstar theory. Firemen, yes. Cops, no...everyone always hates the cops and complains about them. Even though firemen are the ones purposely letting fires burn in open spaces for weeks or months at a time so they can collect thousands in O.T. and were the ones at 9/11 with trucks full of stolen jeans from some of the buildings before the tower collapsed on their trucks. There is no reason on earth why they need to work 24 hour shifts and not 8 hours like every other job on earth. They shouldn't have to have sleeping quarters, cooking quarters, etc. They should work 8 hours and go home like everyone else, it would solve 90% of their personnel conflicts. I know, I had a long term relationship with a ranking fire official years ago.

But EVERYONE loves a fireman (except me, I know better).


OldReliable: Posted: August 25, 2014 4:42 p.m.

When ISIS comes knocking in our communities we better hope that our law enforcement personnel are adequately equipped. Prepare yourselves....


Nitsho: Posted: August 25, 2014 4:51 p.m.

"When ISIS comes knocking in our communities we better hope that our law enforcement personnel are adequately equipped. Prepare yourselves.... "

There is a difference between a demonstration and hostage / active shooter.

You watch too much fox news. That's what the national guard is for.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 4:57 p.m.

Steve (quoting me): "'That'll take the political will of mayors and city councils and police commissions to order them to act like cops instead of storm troopers.'

"AHAHAHAHA! Good one!" And you go on from there.


And as usual, you don't quote me completely. What did I say in that same comment?

"Is there a solution? Maybe. But it'll take political will that I have no confidence is actually present anywhere."


17trillion: Posted: August 25, 2014 5:03 p.m.

"When ISIS comes knocking in our communities we better hope that our law enforcement personnel are adequately equipped. Prepare yourselves...."

I am prepared but what the hell does that have to do with cops patrolling public demonstrations with anti-mine vehicles dressed like they are about to lay siege on Falluja? I fear our own government more than I fear ISIS.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 5:09 p.m.

Chef, I don't agree with you re: the cops. Police chiefs -- Charley Beck being a good example -- seem to be able to run their departments like fiefdoms, with essentially no meaningful accountability to anyone. The same held true with Baca and the Sheriffs. Until the last scandal blew him away, he was a virtual Caesar, unaccountable to anyone.



OR, I have to agree with Nit on this one. There are all kinds of POSSIBLE threats. Hell, TV shows make their livings portraying them. And it's great that the cops have enhanced and/or advanced capabilities to deal with unusual situations.

But in the first place, it's NOT their job to be responsible for every single threat that MAY POSSIBLY happen, under strange or unusual circumstances. That's why there are special units with specialized capabilities, to be mobilized to address UNUSUAL issues that may arise.

The problem becomes apparent when "unusual" starts to cover rather common -- and sometimes even legal -- events, like protests or peaceful demonstrations.

Further, as Nit noted, we have the National Guard, the FBI, Homeland Security and other agencies whose task is to deal with threats or activities with national security and/or terrorist situations. That's NOT the purview of the local cops.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 5:10 p.m.

You're right, BB...I did miss that statement, my apologies.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 5:12 p.m.

"When ISIS comes knocking in our communities we better hope that our law enforcement personnel are adequately equipped. Prepare yourselves...."

ISIS was in Missouri? WOW, who knew? Here I thought it was just a group of people who were getting tired of having people with guns abuse them and kill their children.

ISIS in Ferguson. Guess *that* explains all the body armor and snipers aiming at the crowd, eh?


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 5:25 p.m.

Some really fun stats here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 5:45 p.m.

And it's already started:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/21/swat-lobby-takes-a-shot-at-congress.html


Indy: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:01 p.m.

OldReliable wrote: When ISIS comes knocking in our communities we better hope that our law enforcement personnel are adequately equipped. Prepare yourselves....

Indy: Sadly, this type of fear mongering is what’s causing our police to use ‘Seal Team 6’ tactics on local citizens.

The police officer that executed Brown in Ferguson could have wounded the guy . . . not put 2 rounds in his head.

And the militarization of our police is frightening . . . . who was the police sniper with a military style sniper rifle pointing out in the crowd of ‘citizens’ on top of that ‘armored’ vehicle?

This type of fear mongering about ISIS is probably got the police ready to shoot and kill before even grasping the situation.

Have we all become a bunch of cowards?


Indy: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:06 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: Michael Brown was a strong armed robber and he was no child, he was a 6'4, 300 pound man who was attacking a police officer after committing a strong armed robbery. The police officer had his orbital socket blown out by being punched by this huge a.h. and Brown deserved every last bullet that entered his criminal body.

CNN Contradicts Fox Sources Claiming Darren Wilson Had Fractured Eye Socket
by Matt Wilstein | 4:58 pm, August 21st, 2014

Earlier this week, Fox News reported that Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old unarmed Michael Brown, suffered a fractured eye socket following his confrontation with the teenager. The reporter, Hollie McKay, cited a “source close to the [police] department’s top brass” as providing that information to the network.

However, on CNN Thursday, Don Lemon reported that Wilson did not suffer a fractured or broken eye socket and was rather treated at the hospital for swelling around his face and eyes. Noting that that specific injury has not been reported by CNN, “but is making its way around other media organization,” Lemon cited a “source close to the investigation” who told CNN that Wilson’s x-rays came back negative for a fractured eye socket.

“That source says it is not true, at all, he did not have a torn eye socket,” Lemon said. “Unequivocally.”

Following Lemon’s report, Nancy Grace offered up her official position on the matter: “I really don’t know if we’re going to know what any of this is, or the truth of it, until it comes out in court.”

Indy: Here we go with the Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’ before any real facts are known . . .


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:28 p.m.

"The police officer that executed Brown in Ferguson could have wounded the guy . . . not put 2 rounds in his head." - Indy

Proof, once again, that you have little knowledge of officer involved, self-defense or shooting in general.

Speaking of "innuendo and speculation", I noted you used the word "executed", Indy. Do you have private access to non-public testimony, autopsy reports, ballistics and forensic data?


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:30 p.m.

No prob, Steve.

I'm not used to us agreeing on stuff, either. It's very weird.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:32 p.m.

"The police officer that executed Brown in Ferguson could have wounded the guy . . . not put 2 rounds in his head." - Indy

"Proof, once again, that you have little knowledge of officer involved, self-defense or shooting in general." - Tech.

LOL!


Yeah, I'm always highly amused by people who wonder why the cops didn't just "wing" the guy, or shoot the gun out of his hand, or some other ridiculous nonsense like that.





Nitsho: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:36 p.m.

Indy.. I guess OR missed this...or approves of this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/20/police-officer-suspended-for-pointing-rifle-at-protesters-threatening-them/

These types of cops need to be off the street. Period. Pointing an assault rifle, safety off, on full auto, with the bolt in the fire position as protestors that were not a threat to him.

Also, here's another story of the thug cop mentality... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733825/Ferguson-police-officer-hog-tied-12-year-old-boy-checking-mail-family-home.html

Look...I am not siding on the thug "gentle giant" or the "racist" cop. There aren't enough facts for me. two sides to every story, we've only heard one...

What I am against is the para-military police force...Something ironically Indy or Steve (apologizes if I forget which said it) mocked me for fearing the militarized police. Nice to see they've seen what I was talking about.


Nitsho: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:37 p.m.

"I'm not used to us agreeing on stuff, either. It's very weird. "

Right!


chefgirl358: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:52 p.m.

Brian,

Agreed on both counts with Baca and Beck, they can do whatever they want. But just because the head guys get to run amok doesn't change the fact that the public still hates cops in general, they never love them like they love fire.

We do need local groups of trained officers at every unit that can respond immediately to things like active school shooters, N. Hollywood style bank robberies, etc., and they should be armed with whatever they need to do the job. Period. Remember the N. Hollywood robbers decked out in chainmail from head to toe with crazy caches of weapons and ammo nobody could match? Or Colombine, etc. These things happen and we need to be prepared, IN our communities at the local law enforcement level. We don't have time for them to call some SWAT team or specialized unit somewhere with a 1-2 hour response time minimum.


chefgirl358: Posted: August 25, 2014 6:54 p.m.

The cops should have equal or greater firepower than the general public and over the years the general public has beefed up their personal arsenals like mad, especially since Obama came to town. Everyone outside of (and plenty inside of) CA has an AR-15 and more.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:09 p.m.

'Something ironically Indy or Steve (apologizes if I forget which said it) mocked me for fearing the militarized police. '

Wasn't me...I've felt for years that cops dressing, arming and acting like soldiers was a bad idea.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:12 p.m.

Well, I don't agree that the public hates cops in general, though they're certainly not held in the same ... awe as firemen. But I don't think that's all that important.

Here's the thing about "preparedness". VERY seldom are you going to see guys like those N. Hollywood guys do something like that. That's why that was such a memorable (to this day) episode. Yes, the cops were seriously undergunned that time, and in fact had to go down to B&B Sales (no longer in business, sadly) on Oxnard Bl. to snag some AR-15s (civilian semi-auto versions of the M-16) to deal with those dudes.

In fact, I don't have a problem with the cops having rifles in a certain number of their cars in any given sector, with very strict guidelines on when they can be deployed.

But the problem we're facing nowadays is that cops are showing up at PEACEFUL events -- demonstrations and protests -- decked out in combat garb, armored to the teeth, with full-auto combat rifles, riding armored vehicles, and THEIR FACES MASKED.

I have a HUGE problem with THAT.

You seen me write it many times before: sometimes there's a cost to freedom and liberty.

The absolutely "safest" countries in the world have historically been police states. VERY low crime rates, including crimes of personal violence. The reason why is obvious.

Is that what we're willing to do in the interest of "safety"? Turn our local cops into some paramilitary force? Allow ourselves to be "occupied" by a de facto domestic "army"?

Sound to me like a very bad deal.


Nitsho: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:13 p.m.

Gotcha Steve. I was Indy then.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:13 p.m.

"the public still hates cops in general"

I don't know that that's true...there seem to be plenty of people here who are very "pro"-cop.

I'd like to see some stats that back up your assertion. I'll bet I can predict how various opinions of police align with other factors in any survey. :)

I also think you're conflating "hate" with "fear". We have police forces now who are acting like occupying armies, and officers who treat every citizen like a suspect...not to mention the continual stream of incidents of abuse, harassment, use of unnecessary force, violations of rights, etc.

I submit that anyone who is NOT afraid of the police is either an authoritarian follower, or living in a fool's paradise.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:16 p.m.

"We do need local groups of trained officers at every unit that can respond immediately to things like active school shooters, N. Hollywood style bank robberies, etc."

And that would be fine, but for the fact that the groups are *never* just used for such limited purposes, and the military equipment they get for free is *never* restricted to such incidents.

It's been found over and over again...every police department wants a SWAT team, and then once they get one, they start finding reasons to use it. Same with all these grenade launchers and sniper rifles and armored vehicles and such.

Look at the number of warrants that are now served using SWAT teams...really? 80,000 or more a year? What happened to just serving a warrant and searching the location? Why the "need" for SWAT teams all the time?

A: There *isn't* such a need...the cops manufactured the need because they had these cool toys and all this training, and they just HAD to put it to use.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:17 p.m.

Chefgirl, now I REALLY disagree with you:

"The cops should have equal or greater firepower than the general public...".

"Equal", yes. "Greater", no.

These guys are still civilians. Further, the Second Amendment's purpose is to assure that the general public -- meaning you and me -- isn't at a disadvantage if the government attempts to become too oppressive.

That's also one of the reasons for the existence of the Posse Comitatus laws. To prevent the "militarization" of civilian law enforcement.


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:19 p.m.

For L.A. County Deputy Sheriffs that have completed certification, each is equipped with a Smith & Wesson M&P pistol, a tactical pump shotgun and an M4 carbine.

With backup, that's more than enough firepower to handle the scenarios you detailed, chef girl.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:27 p.m.

I can't believe I'm saying this...

I totally agree with Baker on the cops and their armaments, dress, vehicles, etc.

It particularly pisses me off that they hide their identities. That's a recipe for abuse, violence and rights violations. Any grad student in sociology or psychology can tell you what effect anonymity has on people, especially when they are in positions of power and control.

NO cop should ever hide their badge and/or nametag (or even face) unless they're undercover.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:28 p.m.

"Is that what we're willing to do in the interest of "safety"? Turn our local cops into some paramilitary force? Allow ourselves to be "occupied" by a de facto domestic "army"?

Sound to me like a very bad deal."

However, a fait accompli, sorry to say.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:32 p.m.

'Bushman said that meeting nonviolent protests with a militarized response is “really a bad idea. I can’t believe they’re doing it.” “It’s just really bad for the officers because they feel more powerful, more invincible, more militaristic, ready to attack,” he said. “And also, I think it elicits a response from the observers that, hey, this is war, and people become defensive and they have a fight/flight response.” *********The adoption of masks themselves in a militarized setting, on the part of police or protesters, can also contribute to violence by triggering senses of anonymity and what psychologists call deindividuation. "There's all kinds of evidence in social psychology that that will lead people to do things that they wouldn't do if they could be identified,"************ said Bartholow.'

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/08/how-militarizing-police-can-increase-violence.html


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:36 p.m.

"I can't believe I'm saying this...

"I totally agree with Baker on the cops and their armaments, dress, vehicles, etc."


LOL!

Trust me. I'm as shocked as you are. Maybe we've both been taken over by pod people.

"It particularly pisses me off that they hide their identities."


That in itself is ABSOLUTELY the worst transgression. Like I said, balaclavas are the style of choice for terrorists. Cops have absolutely NO reason to mask their identities, and I find it very scary that they do so. Once there's no more personal responsibility attached, there aren't any more limits, either, other than whatever "they" might want to grant.

These people work for US... not the other way around.

"'Sounds to me like a very bad deal.'

"However, a fait accompli, sorry to say."

Yeah, unless we can turn it around.

As I said, I'm not sanguine.
.
. (cleaned up a spelling error) --edited.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:39 p.m.

Modify what I said:

"Cops have absolutely NO reason to mask their identities..."

Unless they're working undercover, of course.

But if they're working UC, they are NOT working crowd control or other uniform duties.

Just for clarification.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 7:48 p.m.

And there you have it, in Steve's 4:32 PM comment with the link and summary of the article about why the masks are such a bad thing, and why I'm making such a big deal about them.

In a truly free society, the "authorities" don't have to wear masks to hide their identities. It's simple common sense: if people aren't doing something they SHOULD be ashamed of, why would they hide their faces?


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 8:09 p.m.

Concur, Brian and Steve.

For public servants administering the rule of law, all should be operating within the legal framework, openly and transparently.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 8:19 p.m.

Y'know, tech, that's actually an EXCELLENT summarization of the issue in a few simple words in one single sentence.

It's why we don't have "secret" courts or "star chambers". At least, in theory, and per the Constitution. Civil law is supposed to operate openly, and subject to public scrutiny.


Not to open a completely different can of worms, but the reality is that even some of our courts operate in actual secrecy, specifically the FISA courts. Yet another example of repugnant government overreach, but probably off-topic for this thread.

But I can't help but think that the two phenomena are linked.



tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 8:37 p.m.

Precisely, Brian. The "Star Chambers" of England are what the Founders specifically designed our Republic to avoid. The UK abolished them in 1641 as well.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 8:43 p.m.

There you have it.


Indy: Posted: August 25, 2014 9:21 p.m.

Tech wrote: "The police officer that executed Brown in Ferguson could have wounded the guy . . . not put 2 rounds in his head." - Indy

Proof, once again, that you have little knowledge of officer involved, self-defense or shooting in general.

Indy: Proof, once again, that you have little knowledge of officer involved, self-defense or shooting in general.

Tech wrote: Speaking of "innuendo and speculation", I noted you used the word "executed", Indy. Do you have private access to non-public testimony, autopsy reports, ballistics and forensic data?

Indy: I think most Americans realize that when a police officer finds a unarmed man in board daylight in the middle of a street . . . that firing as many rounds as the officer did was be considered a ‘execution’ by anyone with common sense . . . something you’re apparently short in.

In any event, I don’t want a individual police officer ‘deciding’ who should live and who should die in the normal course of business.

Why into fire a warning shot into the air?

We’ll get all the details soon enough but the circumstances of the shooting don’t look good for Wilson . . .


Indy: Posted: August 25, 2014 9:24 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Yeah, I'm always highly amused by people who wonder why the cops didn't just "wing" the guy, or shoot the gun out of his hand, or some other ridiculous nonsense like that.

Indy: Like wounding the guy in the leg without killing him . . . with 2 shots to the head.

It looks more and more like too many police are using military tactics on the public as we see here with Wilson’s execution of this kid.

Then looking at the ‘military equipment’ used by the police against the protesters looks like we're not in the US but in a ‘war zone’.


Indy: Posted: August 25, 2014 9:29 p.m.

Nitsho wrote: Look...I am not siding on the thug "gentle giant" or the "racist" cop. There aren't enough facts for me. two sides to every story, we've only heard one...

Indy: Yes, as we move forward, more of the evidence will be forthcoming.

Questions like: Why didn’t Wilson if he felt overwhelmed just call for ‘back up’ before shooting the suspect as many as six times?

Why did Wilson assume the worst in board daylight in the middle of street?

Nitsho wrote: What I am against is the para-military police force...Something ironically Indy or Steve (apologizes if I forget which said it) mocked me for fearing the militarized police. Nice to see they've seen what I was talking about.

Indy: I didn’t mock you but I’m fearful that the police are now so scared ‘sheetless’ at the sight of black people, they just ‘keep pulling the trigger’.

There’s no ‘give and take’ . . . just ‘fire away’ . . . making the police now the ‘judge and jury’.

I do like the idea of the ‘camera pod’ on the front of police so we can ‘see’ what happened . . . I hope this becomes law.


Indy: Posted: August 25, 2014 9:32 p.m.

chefgirl358 wrote: We do need local groups of trained officers at every unit that can respond immediately to things like active school shooters, N. Hollywood style bank robberies, etc., and they should be armed with whatever they need to do the job. Period. Remember the N. Hollywood robbers decked out in chainmail from head to toe with crazy caches of weapons and ammo nobody could match? Or Colombine, etc. These things happen and we need to be prepared, IN our communities at the local law enforcement level. We don't have time for them to call some SWAT team or specialized unit somewhere with a 1-2 hour response time minimum.

Indy: From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/06/20/the-overuse-of-s-w-a-t-teams/

The Overuse of S.W.A.T. Teams

There is nothing inherently wrong with SWAT teams. In certain situations it makes sense to have a group of well-trained, well-equipped specialists and sharp-shooters take over. Hostage situations or bank robberies may indeed require deployment of these units.

The point really isn’t that SWAT teams have no role to play in law enforcement. The problem is that their mission has expanded to serving warrants for non-violent offenders or deploying tanks to raid people suspected of raising chickens. Meanwhile police firepower has grown exponentially even while SWAT officers receive less and less specialized training.

The problem isn’t that we have SWAT teams to begin with, it’s that they are overused, carelessly deployed, and poorly trained. A well-armed, well-trained SWAT team responding to a shooting rampage or a bank robbery or hostage situation makes sense.

A well-armed, poorly-trained SWAT team breaking down the door of the wrong house, shooting the family dog, and terrorizing the inhabitants for no reason is a tragedy. It’s also the natural evolution of the War on Drugs, which is nothing if not an arms race.


Indy: Posted: August 25, 2014 9:35 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Well, I don't agree that the public hates cops in general, though they're certainly not held in the same ... awe as firemen. But I don't think that's all that important.

Here's the thing about "preparedness". VERY seldom are you going to see guys like those N. Hollywood guys do something like that. That's why that was such a memorable (to this day) episode. Yes, the cops were seriously undergunned that time, and in fact had to go down to B&B Sales (no longer in business, sadly) on Oxnard Bl. to snag some AR-15s (civilian semi-auto versions of the M-16) to deal with those dudes.

In fact, I don't have a problem with the cops having rifles in a certain number of their cars in any given sector, with very strict guidelines on when they can be deployed.

But the problem we're facing nowadays is that cops are showing up at PEACEFUL events -- demonstrations and protests -- decked out in combat garb, armored to the teeth, with full-auto combat rifles, riding armored vehicles, and THEIR FACES MASKED.

I have a HUGE problem with THAT.

Indy: At the risk of alienating you from your fellow conservatives here, we’re in agreement on these points.


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 10:09 p.m.

"Why into fire a warning shot into the air?" - Indy

Are you familiar with gravity, Mr. Engineer?


BrianBaker: Posted: August 25, 2014 10:09 p.m.

Indy: "BrianBaker wrote: Yeah, I'm always highly amused by people who wonder why the cops didn't just "wing" the guy, or shoot the gun out of his hand, or some other ridiculous nonsense like that.

"Indy: Like wounding the guy in the leg without killing him . . . with 2 shots to the head.

"It looks more and more like too many police are using military tactics on the public as we see here with Wilson’s execution of this kid."


No, it has absolutely nothing to do with "military tactics".

If you think, in a real gunfight, people have any opportunity whatsoever to try to be so accurate that they can just "wound" people, or "shoot the gun out of their hand" (not your own quotes, but common "arguments"), then you have no idea of the reality of the situation.

First of all, the very FIRST thing you're taught about gun use is that you NEVER point a gun at someone you're not ready to kill. Plain and simple.

Second, I (nor anyone else who knows guns) would never deploy a gun unless and until their own or someone else's life was in imminent danger. When that happens, things are happening QUICK! You don't have time to screw around.

If and when I draw a gun to protect my life, I'm not wasting time trying to hit a moving target in a non-lethal manner. I want the threat to stop INSTANTLY. I'm not giving that guy chance to get ME. There's a reason I deployed my weapon in the first place, and I'm going to keep pulling the trigger until that dude goes down. DRT.

Dead Right There.

You've been watching too many TV shows.


tech: Posted: August 25, 2014 11:12 p.m.

Here's my perspective and how I train: When employing lethal force with a firearm, the objective is to stop the threat. You instinctively aim and fire at main body mass until the threat is neutralized. Then you stop and wait for law enforcement to arrive and secure the area.

Outside of war, no civilized person wishes to terminate the life of another human being. I hope I and my family/friends are never in that situation.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 11:16 p.m.

"First of all, the very FIRST thing you're taught about gun use is that you NEVER point a gun at someone you're not ready to kill. Plain and simple. "

I'd be interested to hear the answer from the cop with the rifle and scope trained on the demonstrators..."Are you ready to kill those people?"

"Second, I (nor anyone else who knows guns) would never deploy a gun unless and until their own or someone else's life was in imminent danger. "

And the natural follow-up question: "Whose life was in imminent danger, so that you had to point your weapon at someone, ready to kill them?"

Brian is right on here...I was taught *precisely* the same thing when I was a kid, by my grandfather and his brothers (WWII combat veterans). (I was also taught that if you ever have to shoot, keep firing until the gun is empty or the person is down...just as BB said).

All that machismo aside :) ... WHY are police departments deploying with military weaponry, aiming rifles at citizens, hiding their identities, etc.? And if you watch the videos, you'll see the cops taking photos of people (you see this in many videos, e.g., people protesting DUI checkpoints, and the cops photographing them...for facial recognition software, presumably)...because we now live in a surveillance state, and surely that information goes back into the database.

Not to go off on a paranoid tangent, but is *this* what the country has come to? Militarized police, constant surveillance, no privacy, secret courts, etc.?

I guess so...


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 11:19 p.m.

"But the problem we're facing nowadays is that cops are showing up at PEACEFUL events -- demonstrations and protests -- decked out in combat garb, armored to the teeth, with full-auto combat rifles, riding armored vehicles, and THEIR FACES MASKED."

Let's not forget that, even when they're not wearing masks, they're refusing to identify themselves. Arresting reporters, as well, even when it's perfectly obvious, and the reporters identify themselves as such, and have credentials, etc.

There are several stories from reporters who were arrested and despite repeatedly asking, they were unable to get the cops to divulge the names of any of the officers present.


stevehw: Posted: August 25, 2014 11:25 p.m.

And here's a typical example of the attitude from cops now:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/

You've probably seen or heard about this article by an LAPD cop.

What a bunch of horses**t. What he is saying is: don't you dare talk back to me, or question me or my authority, or you'll get jacked up. Ask me if you're being detained, and I'll make sure to make your life miserable, even if in the end, you're innocent. I'll get paid, go about my job, and you get to spend a couple of days in jail on a trumped-up charge that gets dismissed later, and there isn't anything you can do about it, so just shut the F up and do what I say.

A-hole.


tech: Posted: August 26, 2014 12:51 a.m.

stevehw: I'd be interested to hear the answer from the cop with the rifle and scope trained on the demonstrators..."Are you ready to kill those people?"

That clown must be fired and prosecuted. It occurs because we allow it. Wake up, America!


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 12:57 a.m.

"That clown must be fired and prosecuted."

Never happen. Not in a million years.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 12:59 a.m.

BTW, I was talking about the cops on top of the armored vehicles, the ones in full body armor, with rifles/scopes aimed at the crowd...not the psycho cop who was yelling at people "I'll f**king kill you!" (Although he was placed on "leave", I'm quite certain he'll be back on the job, as well).


BrianBaker: Posted: August 26, 2014 1:01 a.m.

Well, I can't add a thing to those comments except:

Ditto.


CaptGene: Posted: August 26, 2014 9:29 a.m.

Wow, talk about uncharted territory; Tech, steve, BB and even Indy Nile in agreement...we're through the looking glass people!

Well, me too. I'm tired of seeing local cops acting like an occupying force. What happened to calling out the National Guard?

As for the death that preceded the riots, I have a hard time believing that the man we saw on video robbing and roughing up a store owner (that was half his size) transformed into a model citizen five minutes later when confronted by police. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's not very likely.


ricketzz: Posted: August 26, 2014 9:44 a.m.

Where was everybody in the fall of 2011 when militarized cops were cracking Occupy Wall Street skulls? This is a War on the Poor on behalf of the same criminal class that sees nothing wrong when a CEO pays $billions in bank funds to stay out of jail, after repeated felony convictions. Jamie Dimon plays golf with Obama and Jeremy Hammond gets 10 years in prison.*

The cops have adopted a zero tolerance policy. When they scream an order at you they give you one-two-three-[empty magazine into non-coop scuzzbag]. Never mind if the person is deaf or doesn't speak English or can't move very quickly; "we have to defend ourselves."

* http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/opinion-hacking-vs-rape-which-crime-more-deserving-jail-time


BrianBaker: Posted: August 26, 2014 10:39 a.m.

CG, we are indeed in uncharted territory. I could swear I saw water running uphill yesterday, too!



Ricketzz, calm down. Try not to let your paranoia get hold of you. The issue simply didn't come up at that time, that's all.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 10:59 a.m.

"The cops have adopted a zero tolerance policy. When they scream an order at you they give you one-two-three-[empty magazine into non-coop scuzzbag]. "

I don't know that it's "empty magazine" every time, but I will say that they seem to resort to force in about zero seconds. Usually accompanied by shouts of "STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING!" so that they can bash the "suspect" around some more, trump up a charge to threaten or charge them with, etc.


17trillion: Posted: August 26, 2014 11:07 a.m.

"Not to go off on a paranoid tangent, but is *this* what the country has come to? Militarized police, constant surveillance, no privacy, secret courts, etc.?"

I agree Steve and with pretty much all the commentary here. It's yet another reason why I choose to be armed and why my entire family is familiar with guns and gun safety. I don't fear terrorists. I don't even fear criminals all that much. I DO fear our government and that fear doesn't know party affiliation.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 26, 2014 12:33 p.m.

Good on-topic article:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2014/08/26/untitled-n1883277


Nitsho: Posted: August 26, 2014 12:41 p.m.

I'm still wanting to know what the billions of rounds of ammo that literally every agency in the federal government received. They still never addressed that.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 12:43 p.m.

McCaskill and Levin aren't going to do jack. Neither is Obama and some silly "White House review".

Like I said...we're here now, and we're not going back. Expect more of the same, or worse.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 12:50 p.m.

BTW...interesting that most of the comments on that site seem to support *keeping* or even increasing the militarized police forces.


17trillion: Posted: August 26, 2014 1:08 p.m.

Why does NASA have it's own SWAT team? Same with the Department of Education? Can anyone tell me why a local police department needs an anti-mine vehicle? Any reason will do.

The billion rounds bought by the Dept of Homeland Security is very concerning! I'm no conspiracy theorist, but isn't it a bit odd that there is sporadic ammunition shortages throughout the country?


Nitsho: Posted: August 26, 2014 1:09 p.m.

"BTW...interesting that most of the comments on that site seem to support *keeping* or even increasing the militarized police forces."

I noticed that as a well. Makes you wonder who would be interested in that.


BB. time to schedule that dinner for all of us while we all agree.... :)


BrianBaker: Posted: August 26, 2014 1:18 p.m.

LOL, Nit!

Yeah, maybe now's the time, before we're at each other's throats again.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 2:05 p.m.

"The billion rounds bought by the Dept of Homeland Security is very concerning! I'm no conspiracy theorist, but isn't it a bit odd that there is sporadic ammunition shortages throughout the country? "

This has been pretty well debunked.


17trillion: Posted: August 26, 2014 2:22 p.m.

I guess you don't shop much for ammo. So the market just absorbs a billion purchased rounds?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-behind-the-national-ammunition-shortage/

http://www.gunsandammo.com/ammo/ammo-shortage/

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/why-weve-had-ammunition-shortage

http://pjmedia.com/blog/nationwide-ammunition-shortage-hits-us/

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nuts/2014/02/rimfire-ammo-shortage-continues

Just pulling "facts" from your behind again Steve? Yea, it's debunked all right because that's what Rachel Maddow told you!

Care for a few more links? I gave the first few but Google has 1.8 million more.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 2:53 p.m.

No, I didn't say there weren't shortages. I was talking about the conspiracy theory that the government was buying more rounds than usual.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 3:04 p.m.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/why-weve-had-ammunition-shortage


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 3:06 p.m.

"Why does NASA have it's own SWAT team? Same with the Department of Education? "

Probably because space shuttles and rockets make pretty high-value targets for a) crazy people and b) criminals (terrorists) or other state actors.

I don't know why DoE would have a SWAT team. Seems pretty silly to me.


17trillion: Posted: August 26, 2014 3:39 p.m.

Your link even states that government sales are up. Yes, private sales are up too but at nowhere near the degree that the government is buying.

Ok, so NASA having a SWAT team isn't awful. How about the BLM or the Dept of Agriculture of the Railroad Retirement Board or the Office of Personnel and Management or the Consumer Product Safety Commission or Fish and Game? Remember Steve, it's not just having armed personnel on the off change that a Railroad engineer goes postal, it's full on SWAT teams with all the military weaponry that goes along with it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund

"I'm here from the government and I'm here to help!"



stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 3:49 p.m.

Dude, I'm not arguing with you on this. I agree that not all, probably not even *most*, agencies need a SWAT team. BLM? Well, from what we saw up in Nevada with that Bundy jerk, they're apparently about as competent as our local sheriff's office. Agriculture? Unless they're using them in the National Forests to root out dope growers, which might make some sense, probably not (although, if we ended the stupid "***WAR*** on drugs" we might not have that problem). OPM? Pshaw...paperpushers. No need for a SWAT team that I can think of. CPSC? Same. If they ever grow the balls to actually raid some bank for fraud (highly doubtful) or something, they can just get the FBI or FPS to support them if they think they need it. Fish and Game (isn't that state, anyway)? Hmmmm...dunno about that one. Again...maybe dealing with pot growers, or poaching? Not sure.

Railroad Retirement Board? LOL! Uh, no.

NASA? Yep. Lots of high-value targets, and things that go BOOM when ignited, not to mention some very dangerous chemicals (can you spell "unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine"? :) ), etc. DOE (Energy)? Ahyup. Nuclear materials and all. That sort of agency...no problem.

Education? No way.

But again...this *won't change*. We've militarized police forces across the country, ginned up fear of terrorism around every corner, and now we're seeing where that leads.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 3:53 p.m.

"Your link even states that government sales are up. Yes, private sales are up too but at nowhere near the degree that the government is buying."

From the article:
"The current increase in demand is attributed to the civilian market. Our production volumes on government contracts have been stable since the mid-2000s.”

This gibes with what I've read elsewhere, although I don't have time to find the links right now...that basically, the federal government is buying at about the same rate, but last year opened a multiyear contract for options to buy in the out-years at reduced rates, and the majority of any "shortage" is due to consumer demand, not the government. Also, that the government is not "stockpiling" ammo, but using it up, just as DoD does, in training exercises.

I think only the really rabid right-wingers are still clinging to the "government is stockpiling all the ammo" conspiracy theory.


17trillion: Posted: August 26, 2014 4:03 p.m.

"I think only the really rabid right-wingers are still clinging to the "government is stockpiling all the ammo" conspiracy theory."

And only rabid left-wingers cling to the belief that the government is on their side and knows best and would never do something like purposefully create an ammunition shortage, they being so pro-gun and all.


17trillion: Posted: August 26, 2014 4:06 p.m.

Your link only cites purchases through 2012. This one says 2 billion rounds have been purchased SINCE 2012 and another 1.6 billion have been ordered.

The source is Breitbart AND the Washington Post.

http://politix.topix.com/story/4684-feds-buy-2-billion-rounds-of-ammunition

No, I'm sure a couple billion rounds isn't enough to create a shortage.


Indy: Posted: August 26, 2014 4:18 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: Brian is right on here...I was taught *precisely* the same thing when I was a kid, by my grandfather and his brothers (WWII combat veterans). (I was also taught that if you ever have to shoot, keep firing until the gun is empty or the person is down...just as BB said).

Indy: Yes, in a ‘WAR ZONE’ not on a public street in board daylight with a unarmed ‘citizen’.

Stevehw wrote: All that machismo aside :) ... WHY are police departments deploying with military weaponry, aiming rifles at citizens, hiding their identities, etc.? And if you watch the videos, you'll see the cops taking photos of people (you see this in many videos, e.g., people protesting DUI checkpoints, and the cops photographing them...for facial recognition software, presumably)...because we now live in a surveillance state, and surely that information goes back into the database.

Indy: This surveillance works both ways . . . once we know the name of the police person that dealt with us, we can take our own civil rights actions in court as the case may be.

Stevehw wrote: Not to go off on a paranoid tangent, but is *this* what the country has come to? Militarized police, constant surveillance, no privacy, secret courts, etc.?

Indy: Americans have become scared ‘sheetless’ . . . the fear mongering by politicians to keep the military funded at what, some $700 billion dollars per year and we still don’t feel safe?

That’s the whole strategy for a police state . . . keep the people so scared that they relinquish all their liberties and civil rights.

We’ve become a nation of cowards . . . and we’re letting the police that were hired to protect us now ‘threaten’ us . . .


Indy: Posted: August 26, 2014 4:21 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: "But the problem we're facing nowadays is that cops are showing up at PEACEFUL events -- demonstrations and protests -- decked out in combat garb, armored to the teeth, with full-auto combat rifles, riding armored vehicles, and THEIR FACES MASKED."

Let's not forget that, even when they're not wearing masks, they're refusing to identify themselves. Arresting reporters, as well, even when it's perfectly obvious, and the reporters identify themselves as such, and have credentials, etc.

Indy: Then we hire PIs to stay at the station across the street and take pics of who works there . . . and then ID the person in question.

Stevehw wrote: There are several stories from reporters who were arrested and despite repeatedly asking, they were unable to get the cops to divulge the names of any of the officers present.

Indy: Yes, the officers have the same fear of us coming to ‘get them’ at their homes . . . but they are creating this situation by their actions.


Indy: Posted: August 26, 2014 4:23 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: And here's a typical example of the attitude from cops now:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/

You've probably seen or heard about this article by an LAPD cop.

What a bunch of horses**t. What he is saying is: don't you dare talk back to me, or question me or my authority, or you'll get jacked up. Ask me if you're being detained, and I'll make sure to make your life miserable, even if in the end, you're innocent. I'll get paid, go about my job, and you get to spend a couple of days in jail on a trumped-up charge that gets dismissed later, and there isn't anything you can do about it, so just shut the F up and do what I say.

A-hole.

Indy: Yes, that can happen . . . our lonely defense or what I’ll do is once I know the name, I’ll sue this guy . . . FOREVER!

He’ll have a lawsuit on his desk for his entire life . . . . he’s got us in the short run but we can persist . . .


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 5:30 p.m.

"Indy: Yes, that can happen . . . our lonely defense or what I’ll do is once I know the name, I’ll sue this guy . . . FOREVER!

He’ll have a lawsuit on his desk for his entire life . . . . he’s got us in the short run but we can persist . . ."

You're joking, right? You can't possibly be serious. If you are, you must have ZERO experience with the judicial system.

"Indy: Then we hire PIs to stay at the station across the street and take pics of who works there . . . and then ID the person in question. "

Uh, yeah...right.

I thought ricketzz occasionally posted some bizarre stuff...


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 5:32 p.m.

"Your link only cites purchases through 2012. This one says 2 billion rounds have been purchased SINCE 2012 and another 1.6 billion have been ordered.

The source is Breitbart AND the Washington Post.

http://politix.topix.com/story/4684-feds-buy-2-billion-rounds-of-ammunition

No, I'm sure a couple billion rounds isn't enough to create a shortage. "

Man, you have GOT to stop relying on things like Breitbart for your info...

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660143.pdf


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 5:38 p.m.

You know, when even the NRA debunks your "government is stockpiling ammo" conspiracy theory, you *know* you're in far-right-wingnut land...

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/federal-law-enforcement-agencies-buy-ammunition.aspx


17trillion: Posted: August 26, 2014 5:59 p.m.

"Man, you have GOT to stop relying on things like Breitbart for your info..."

You're not reading again Steve. The source was BOTH Breitbart AND the WaPo...both, in conjunction, together, partners...you know! Did you read it?

And finally Steve, it might be helpful for your position as a member of the far left wingnut land to read your own link. Your link said absolutely nothing about a shortage of ammunition instead it addressed the government stockpiling ammunition. In addition I note that your so-called "proof" is TWO YEARS OLD!

This article doesn't reflect purchases made in the last 24 months, which as I stated above, covers over a billion new rounds purchased. Nobody was talking shortage 2 years ago Steve. You might as well have provided a link listing the dinner menu on the Titanic as proof of your position.

I may be a right wingnut but I can read and I don't provide proof of my positions that are dated and not even close to germane. I laugh at your pitiful attempt to debate the merits of my position.


tech: Posted: August 26, 2014 6:05 p.m.

The ammo shortage has been due to unprecedented civilian demand for firearms and the ammo that feeds them in the last few years. Supply is just now catching up with demand. The NRA has confirmed this directly with ammo manufacturers.

My wife and I were at Oaktree last Sunday to introduce our family friend to pistol shooting. I couldn't start her on .22 rimfire because the range was out. No worries, I had her knocking down short range steel targets with the 1st magazine of 9mm. :-)


tech: Posted: August 26, 2014 6:10 p.m.

Indy: Indy: Yes, the officers have the same fear of us coming to ‘get them’ at their homes . . . but they are creating this situation by their actions.

To be fair, this can be legitimate. My brother-in-law is an L.A. Deputy Sheriff and is very careful about private data leaking to criminals he's testified against. He relayed that a few years back he was at Target shopping with my sister-in-law and had a former convict greet him. Fortunately, his wife was in another department and he had her exit the store via text.


AlwaysRight: Posted: August 26, 2014 6:40 p.m.

I used to buy 22 ammo by the half-brick at WalMart without a problem. Now, unless you get there within an hour of delivery, its all gone.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 7:38 p.m.

"In addition I note that your so-called "proof" is TWO YEARS OLD!"

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660143.pdf

Dated January, 2014.

"I may be a right wingnut but I can read and I don't provide proof of my positions that are dated and not even close to germane. "

Uh, yeah, sure thing, skippy.


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 7:50 p.m.

BTW, this has been addressed many times in many place:

D.H.S. officials have pointed out repeatedly that bulk buying — whether ammunition, computers or stationery — is the norm for reasons of economy, and is especially sensible in the era of sequestration so zealously approved by Congress. D.H.S. says that its plan to buy about 750 million rounds in the next five years — 80 percent for training purposes — is not unusual.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/the-ammo-conspiracy/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

AHAHAHA!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth

Even Breitbart calls it a myth... LOL!


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 7:52 p.m.

In 2013 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a number of different requests for quotes for various types of ammunition totaling hundreds of millions of rounds. However, those quotes represented the upper limits of options to buy ammunition over the course of several years, not a one-time mass purchase of that number of rounds. The purpose of the proposed buys was to supply ammunition for training and use by agents of the DHS and other federal law enforcement agencies:
Federal solicitations to buy the bullets are known as "strategic sourcing contracts," which help the government get a low price for a big purchase, says Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Ga. The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.

Dixon said one of the contracts would allow Homeland Security to buy up to 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years for its training facilities. The rounds are used for basic and advanced law enforcement training for federal law enforcement agencies under the department's umbrella. The facilities also offer firearms training to tens of thousands of federal law enforcement officers. More than 90 federal agencies and 70,000 agents and officers used the department's training center last year.

The rest of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition would be purchased by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal government's second largest criminal investigative agency.

[DHS Secretary Janet] Napolitano said the numbers have been exaggerated. She said the contracts that have been reported represent an option to buy up to a certain limit over five years, and are not a one-time mass purchase.

She said buying that way allows the department to save as much as 80 percent on the cost of each round.

She also said it’s not surprising the number of rounds per law enforcement agent in her department may be high because some of them have to re-qualify with their weapons several times a year

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp#lPDsgiwvuu7gV90y.99


Indy: Posted: August 26, 2014 7:55 p.m.

Stevehw wrote: "Indy: Yes, that can happen . . . our lonely defense or what I’ll do is once I know the name, I’ll sue this guy . . . FOREVER!

He’ll have a lawsuit on his desk for his entire life . . . . he’s got us in the short run but we can persist . . ."

You're joking, right? You can't possibly be serious. If you are, you must have ZERO experience with the judicial system.

Indy: In the US, you can sue anybody for anything anytime . . . why not use that power to chase after police that brutalize the public?

You want to lay down for this insanity . . . that’s your choice . . .

"Indy: Then we hire PIs to stay at the station across the street and take pics of who works there . . . and then ID the person in question. "

Stevehw wrote: Uh, yeah...right.

I thought ricketzz occasionally posted some bizarre stuff...

Indy: It’s not bizarre at all . . . but if you get brutalized and want to lay down, that’s again, your choice . . .

I think the police need to realize that the days of brutalizing the public are over especially with the technology we have at hand.


Indy: Posted: August 26, 2014 8:04 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: Indy: Yes, the officers have the same fear of us coming to ‘get them’ at their homes . . . but they are creating this situation by their actions.

To be fair, this can be legitimate. My brother-in-law is an L.A. Deputy Sheriff and is very careful about private data leaking to criminals he's testified against. He relayed that a few years back he was at Target shopping with my sister-in-law and had a former convict greet him. Fortunately, his wife was in another department and he had her exit the store via text.

Indy: Yes, but I’m talking about just everyday people that are abused by the police.

Some of these folks believe they can bully us with no consequences . . . that’s not really true.

But the better alternative is putting cameras on police, let the pictures do the talking in court.

Further, we need better police training to weed out the malcontents.

Policing is very hard work . . . police run into a lot of very bad people . . . it’s understanding who’s bad and who isn’t that’s the difficult process . . .

Finally, the discussions we have here with public education have real world consequences.

From data I saw years ago, 85% or so of the people in jails are ‘functionally illiterate’. There’s a connection between failure in the classroom and the reality that takes place later.

Those that want to blame the parents for a student’s failure can’t seem to grasp that the kid is the loser . . .

We could help our police a lot by providing rational economic strategies that accept economic scarcity such that people can find jobs . . . versus living in abject poverty and being functionally illiterate.

I suggest learning about sustainability . . . versus reciting ‘libertarian market fundamentalism’ that has created this mess we are now in . . . .


stevehw: Posted: August 26, 2014 8:07 p.m.

"Indy: In the US, you can sue anybody for anything anytime . . . why not use that power to chase after police that brutalize the public?"

Well, not exactly. You can *try* to sue a cop, but they're shielded by numerous laws and precedents.

Suing a cop for not telling you their name is going to go nowhere fast.

"but if you get brutalized and want to lay down, that’s again, your choice . . . "

While not "laying down", I'm also not naïve enough to think that one can just file lawsuits at the drop of a hat against law enforcement officers and have any hope of success.

IANAL, but I'm sure plenty of people here can school you on what it takes to successfully sue a government official, let alone a LEO.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 26, 2014 8:21 p.m.

We went through an ammo shortage like this about 20 years ago. I remember it well.

I'm a reloader, and even reloading components were in short supply. It was simply due to normal supply and demand, as demand skyrocketed. I think it was due to some legislation that was pending or had passed. After a year or two things pretty much returned to normal, though after prices readjusted they ended up higher than before. But then, I used to buy gas for 25 cents a gallon when I was in college, too. That sure ain't happening again.

A few years ago I bought a little Bersa Thunder .380 ACP. Ammo was dirt cheap in that caliber, because it wasn't very popular.

Guess what? A couple of years ago the .380 caliber took off, and demand skyrocketed, as every manufacturer started pumping out .380 pistols. Now? .380 ammo's gotten really expensive, IF you can even find it. It's even been written up in a bunch of the gun mags.


17trillion: Posted: August 27, 2014 10:47 a.m.

"Uh, yeah, sure thing, skippy."


In other words, you concede! 2 year old links...priceless!


stevehw: Posted: August 27, 2014 11:05 a.m.

Did you read the GAO report from *2014*? Of course not...the GAO is *in on the conspiracy*, right?

Conspiracy theory whackadoodles are so amusing sometimes.


AlwaysRight: Posted: August 27, 2014 12:24 p.m.

BB- do you buy 22 ammo? If so, where do you get it? I can't be hanging around Wal-Mart every morning....


17trillion: Posted: August 27, 2014 12:38 p.m.

So I'm just supposed to read link after link because you're too intellectually lazy to read them yourself? Did you read mine? Did you read yours? It's clear you don't read mine or yours since all you do in response to post another link to something you think makes your argument. I laugh at the tactic.

But just for grins, I DID read the GAO report. It's clear you didn't, typically, since it's for years 2013 and prior even though you cite it's for 2014. It's DATED January 2014 in case you didn't catch that part. Can you even stay on topic? It also just speaks about Homeland Security and not all federal agencies purchasing ammunition. Had you read any of the 51 pages, rather than just the title, you would be able to speak intelligently with me about this subject. But you didn't and you can't.

People with their noses stuck so far up governments butt, except when it suits them to do otherwise, are NOT amusing but are indeed pathetic.


17trillion: Posted: August 27, 2014 12:39 p.m.

AR, Oak Tree is usually well stocked.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 27, 2014 1:26 p.m.

AR and guys, when I actually do buy ammo, I do it almost exclusively online. Not only can I usually find someone with stock, but the prices are generally better, too.

A couple of suggestions:

http://www.gunbroker.com/

http://www.cabelas.com/

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/

http://www.championshooters.com/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&view=category&virtuemart_category_id=10&Itemid=111

http://www.sportsmansguide.com/

http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/handgunammo.html

http://www.kitterytradingpost.com/hunting-shooting/ammunition-magazines

http://lancerammo.com/products/products.aspx

http://www.midwayusa.com/

http://www.natchezss.com/

http://www.surplusammo.com/


tech: Posted: August 27, 2014 2:37 p.m.

I do as well, Brian. I'm now saving brass so my brother and I can reconstitute the reloading setup of our youth. I want to pass on those skills to my sons.

Nice list. I'll add this site for great value and stock:

http://www.luckygunner.com/

Of course, Sacramento looney tunes like "Ghost Gun" de Leon are attempting to criminalize online ammo sales. His bill is akin to stating purchasing an automobile is legal but you'll need to be fingerprinted and recorded to buy fuel.

Only an idiot would posit that illegal ammo access would be curtailed by SB53. The real objective is a chilling of legal ammo sales. Is anyone naïve enough to believe that quantity tracking and limits aren't queued up?

Our rights and freedoms are being curtailed incrementally as the growth of the police state continues apace.

2nd Amendment rights are a barometer of our Constitutional protections. A single party state allows these bills to be rammed through the legislature and signed into law by the governor of the same party. The Party members know it takes years to roll back unconstitutional statutes and count on citizen complacency.

Think on that before you return freedom robbing incumbents to office.


stevehw: Posted: August 27, 2014 3:33 p.m.

"So I'm just supposed to read link after link because you're too intellectually lazy to read them yourself? Did you read mine? Did you read yours? "

Yes, I did. Some people are able to read things more quickly than you, I guess.

And yes, I know it was for 2013 and years prior...because, well, duh...we're still IN 2014 and, as if this wasn't perfectly obvious to the well-educated reader, if it was published in January of THIS year, it can't include THIS year. Still, 2013 was only 8 months ago, a far cry from your histrionics about 'so-called "proof" [that is] TWO YEARS OLD'.

I think it's YOU who can't stay on topic. I've given you actual data from the GAO on the DHS and DOJ procurements of ammunition, which clearly demonstrates that the government isn't "stockpiling" ammo or trying to manufacture shortages or anything of the sort. EVEN YOUR OWN SOURCES agree. The NRA agrees. The hunting magazines and organizations agree. Hell, even Baker and others here agree.

Thus, I think the only thing a rational person can conclude is that you're a conspiracy theory nut about this. No amount of facts can change your mind.

Enjoy your time in cloud-cuckooland.


AlwaysRight: Posted: August 27, 2014 6:20 p.m.

Thx, guys.
Great list, BB.


BrianBaker: Posted: August 27, 2014 7:06 p.m.

De nada, pard.


17trillion: Posted: August 28, 2014 12:23 p.m.

"Enjoy your time in cloud-cuckooland."


Is your dad going to beat up my dad? No wait, that's too mature. How about "I know you are but what am I?"


tech: Posted: September 1, 2014 5:03 p.m.

Ferguson PD now wearing donated body cams.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29018911



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...