Setting in front of our TVs probably just as horrified as you were at the extreme use of tanks to take down that cult wacko. It would have saved many lives if they had been able to lure him out, and I'm sure you saw the condemnation the ATF got over their siege. But then again, that was the ATF, an arm of the US government and not partially trained local police itching to use free government surplus ATVs.
Cap't Jack
Ya, the ATF suffered horribly after the seige.
8-/
BTW - it was the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, (who were also suffering horribly after the murders they along with the US Marshals Office committed at Ruby Ridge) who were operating the tanks (Lon Horiuchi, the FBI HRT sniper who shot Vicky Weaver through the head while she was holding her baby at Ruby Ridge) was driving one of the Bradley AFV's - requisitioned from the Texas National Guard under questionable circumstances.
Guess he must have been suffering terribly from the "condemnation" he received after the Ruby Ridge shooting too...probably needed to let loose a little frustration by grinding Branch Davidians under the treads of his Bradley?
Point is...all of these angencies, whether federal, state or municipal are supposed to be "peace officers" - not militia or quasi-military...the local sheriff of Waco, Texas volunteered to arrest David Koresh without any fanfare or publicity - but was shunned by the federal BATF authorities who where there to grandstand for increased funding by the publicity generated by a gala raid conducted in front of the cameras.
Give a cop some authority and he will use it - give a cop a tank and he will abuse it.
;-)
Point is…all of these angencies, whether federal, state or municipal are supposed to be “peace officers" - not militia or quasi-military…the local sheriff of Waco, Texas volunteered to arrest David Koresh without any fanfare or publicity - but was shunned by the federal BATF authorities who where there to grandstand for increased funding by the publicity generated by a gala raid conducted in front of the cameras.
Give a cop some authority and he will use it - give a cop a tank and he will abuse it.
And that is exactly the point I was making! Indeed, more people need to express their condemnation of these extreme militaristic strong armed tactics by the "authorities" many of whom are now coming from former combat situations in the Middle East. They seem to see terrorists around every corner here in America and tend to use overwhelming force on civilians. Once again, psychological tactics, waters cannons, tear and pepper gas, laser guns and beanbag shotguns instead of M16s, 50 cal. Machine guns and ATVs. Military weapons belong on the battlefield.
Cap't Jack
Yes, people should never live where a riot might break out! How does anyone pick out thugs in a crowd of thugs?
So you're assuming that everyone, let's use Ferguson as a recent event, in the crowd is a thug and not a legitimate demonstrator or curiosity seeker? That of course doesn't at all square with the facts. There were outsiders from other areas with other agendas who wanted to escalate the demonstration into a riot for their own ends, looting and burning. It's happened many times before BTW. Riots may break out anywhere and at anytime in any city so we should prepare to slaughter them with overwhelming military might as we did in the 19th Century? How about rubber or beanbag bullets instead of M16s? That's my point.
Cap't Jack
We'll leave it to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you're being shot at will you just stand there looking for the good guys and the bad guys? Are the bad gurs wearing black hats?
Lois
We’ll leave it to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you’re being shot at will you just stand there looking for the good guys and the bad guys? Are the bad gurs wearing black hats?
That's a pretty naive statement and what the hell does it have to do with the topic anyway? Who's doing the shooting, The police or the demonstrators? Who do you consider the "good guys", those with the military assault weapons or those with rocks and bottles? To reiterate, civilian police departments don't need overwhelming force to control a demonstration (perfectly legal BTW) or a riot. And to answer your simplistic question, I'd seek cover if I had the time no matter who has the weapon.
Cap't Jack
We’ll leave it to you to separate the wheat from the chaff. If you’re being shot at will you just stand there looking for the good guys and the bad guys? Are the bad gurs wearing black hats?
That's a pretty naive statement and what the hell does it have to do with the topic anyway? Who's doing the shooting, The police or the demonstrators? Who do you consider the "good guys", those with the military assault weapons or those with rocks and bottles? To reiterate, civilian police departments don't need overwhelming force to control a demonstration (perfectly legal BTW) or a riot. And to answer your simplistic question, I'd seek cover if I had the time no matter who has the weapon.
Cap't Jack
You're the one who said, "There were outsiders from other areas with other agendas who wanted to escalate the demonstration into a riot for their own ends, looting and burning." I'm just wondering how you tell the difference, especially if you're under fire. What do you think the police should do when a deadly riot breaks out and they know that some of the rioters are "outsiders"--especially if most of the rioters--insiders and outsiders-- are armed?
I'm not in favor of the militarization of police but wonder what they should be expected to do in such a circumstance. Tear gas and rubber bullets don't usually so much to quell a riot.
Lois
You’re the one who said, “There were outsiders from other areas with other agendas who wanted to escalate the demonstration into a riot for their own ends, looting and burning." I’m just wondering how you tell the difference, especially if you’re under fire. What do you think the police should do when a deadly riot breaks out and they know that some of the rioters are “outsiders"—especially if most of the rioters—insiders and outsiders—are armed?
I’m not in favor of the militarization of police but wonder what they should be expected to do in such a circumstance. Tear gas and rubber bullets don’t usually so much to quell a riot.
Well, the first thing you don't do is shoot em' all and let god sort them out. In a riot situation the very items I mention can and have backed mobs down with minimal casualties. Killing people just escalates the situation and leads to more riots and the inevitable aftermath, more property destroyed, lawsuits and copycat riots. You can't diffuse a situation with bullets and in a riot it's almost impossible to cull out those with deadly weapons. BTW, most of the riots here in the US began over frustration caused by living conditions, e.g. The 1967 L.A. Riots. Same in Ferguson.
Cap't Jack