Ruling Class Quietly Continues to Prepare to Defend Itself from…

or make aggressive war on, the rest of us.

Florida police department now prepared for mine fields, ground assault

Courtesy of Fort Pierce Police Department

Officer Keith Holmes shows off the Fort Pierce Police Department’s new Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle.

The Fort Pierce Police Department is ready for war.

The Florida city of 42,000 now boasts a six-wheel, 61,700-pound armored vehicle to transport SWAT teams.

“Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it?” – Patrick Henry

  • http://www.thefeverchart.com/ Mark Gordon
  • Dave G.

    Curious. All of the singled out specifics appear to be defensive. Mine resistant. Ambush protected. I mean, it’s not like it’s armed with rocket launchers. And given that even SWAT team members and general police have families and kids and all, protecting them seems OK,

    • UAWildcatx2

      That may be true, but the implication is that the populace is going to start planting mines. That’s what’s odd to me.

      • meunke

        Not necessarily. The implication to me is that department funds needed increase/spending and somebody got slipped some money so that other people made a pile of money selling a piece of rolling stock that didn’t get sold to the military.

        • UAWildcatx2

          Good point.

      • Dave G.

        Well since it’s never happened before, I’m sure we don’t need to worry.

        • UAWildcatx2

          Then why use tax-payer funds to buy this?

          • Dave G.

            Because, who knows, maybe things are known that us bloggers don’t know (not that I’m implying folks who risk the terrors of carpal tunnel syndrome don’t know all mind you).

            • chezami

              Fascinating how trust in the wisdom of the State becomes absolute when the conversation moves from poor people to jackbooted thugs.

              • Dave G.

                What trust in what state? I grew up being told we have met the enemy and it is US Though to me it’s fascinating that you continue to elevate some servants of the state (soldiers) while continually displaying suspicion toward others (such as police). .

                Oh, and being a poor person myself, I don’t tend to readily dismiss their role in a conversation as quickly as your statement suggests.

              • James Scott

                I don’t trust the State at all but I don’t trust you either Mark when you talk politics because history shows us some hysterical weirdness is on the way.

                I am not disappointed.

                It appears a single defensive vehicle nothing more.

                Yawn.

                • jroberts548

                  It’s not a single defensive vehicle. It’s part of a larger program of the dod being made to buy more than it needs and then giving away the surplus to local law enforcement. One mrap in one department would be a sign of an insane sheriff or commissioner with too much money and too little supervision. Billions of dollars of “surplus” military equipment being given to police departments is a sign of the quasi militarization of the police.

                  • Dave G.

                    Then I would look at everything, and not single out anything in law enforcement as proof of bad, while continuing to heap praises on our fighting men and women who are, you know, part of the big picture. Trying to do that just smacks of too many viewings of Easy Rider rather than really taking in the whole of what is going on.

                    • jroberts548

                      The people in congress who made the decision to make the army buy more than it needs and then give it away to cops are not our fighting men and women. One can (and ought!) have a great deal of respect for our fighting men and women while having little respect for the congress men and women responsible for this.

    • jroberts548

      How many cops have been killed by landmines?

      And the risks facing cops are vastly overrated. They face less risk than people like garbagemen, loggers, and delivery drivers, and they’re more likely to die due to their own bad driving than they are to die due to getting shot. Every cent spent on mine resistant vehicles would save more cops’ lives if they were spent on teaching cops how to drive. The money spent would save more lives generally if it was spent to make trash collection safer.

      • Dave G.

        Overrated? Really? Based on stats, our dear soldiers overseas are in no worse condition, since more Americans die in traffic accidents in a year than soldiers have in our entire post-9/11 escapades. So does that mean that the risk to our soldiers is overrated?

        • jroberts548

          Yes and no.

          No, the risk born by soldiers isn’t overrated or overvalued generally when talking about how much we should value their service.

          However, specific risks born by soldiers can be wildly over- or underrated, in ways that are detrimental to soldiers. Overvaluing the threat posed by Al Qaeda to soldiers and undervaluing the threat posed by “friendly fire” or car or aircraft accidents results in dead soldiers. Likewise, overvaluing the threat posed by terror against everyone, while undervaluing the threat posed by car wrecks against everyone, results in sending soldiers overseas to kill and to die, and results in more people dying on our roads. A correct risk assessment would mean hundreds fewer dead soldiers and thousands fewer dead drivers.

          ETA: That is, even giving cops every benefit of the doubt, the risk posed to them by landmines (zero) is outweighed by the risk posed to everyone by giving cops a military vehicle and telling them to use it (at least slightly above zero, based just on the risk of negligently getting in an accident).

          • Dave G.

            In a general sense. But given that our wars are immoral and evil, and that terrorism is no big deal in the greater scheme of things, it’s more likely we will need the direct benefits of a police officer than any long term or general benefits from our soldiers being overseas, or in the military at all (and that’s not counting that most of the military is never in harm’s way to begin with). Likewise, we had 81 soldiers killed in the line of duty in 2013, while we had 31 police officers killed by gun fire alone 2013.

            Don’t get me wrong, I grew up hearing the same general contempt for the police as there was for our baby killing Rambos in green. But in the 90s with the first Gulf War, critics learned they could no longer trot out ‘baby killing Genghis Khans’ and last long in the post-Reagan era. So suddenly we elevated, almost to mythical level, our armed forces while sustaining the old Woodstock era contempt for the jack booted thugs in blue.

            I’m for keeping it real. I wouldn’t want to be a cop. I’ve seen what it does to the families. I wouldn’t want to be a front line soldier either. I just like to maintain a consistent and balanced approach. Especially since I have a feeling somewhere deep down that the threats we’re facing, both home and abroad, are worse than we care to admit, and it’s nice having both the folks in green and the folks in blue nearby, despite whatever abuses may occur.

            • jroberts548

              The difference is that when a member of the armed forces murders someone, they go to jail. They don’t get suspended with pay. They go to Leavenworth. The armed forces might sometimes punish the baby-killers insufficiently, but there’s no soldiers’ union telling us that the baby-killers are just doing their job and that it’s just a battlefield that we civilians don’t understand.

              If police departments and police unions were less defensive of other cops who murder and rape people (as in the recent cases of Jesus Huerta in NC or David Eckert in NM), then police would no longer deserve contempt. Additionally, somehow, garbage collectors and delivery drivers manage to do their jobs without routinely murdering people, and when delivery drivers do murder people, no one says that that’s okay.

              I just expect cops to follow the same laws they ostensibly enforce, and to be as brave as their fellow public servants, garbagemen.

              • meunke

                “The difference is that when a member of the armed forces murders someone, they go to jail.”
                - *SNICKER* Really? Then our prisons must be just FULL of drone pilots that have blown up weddings.

                Your rant here shows you have a blanket hatred for police that is irrational. Have there been some bad (in some cases VERY BAD) cops? Oh, you bet. But to heap scorn and hatred on an entire profession of many thousands for the misdeeds of a few…. you sound exactly like the New Atheists who scream that all priests are child rapists.

                • jroberts548

                  The drone operations that blow up weddings are conducted by the CIA, not the armed forces, at least to the extent that the targeted killing program has been made public.

              • Dave G.

                Typically, if it’s found that a police officer has murdered, actually shown, then he or she goes to jail. Likewise, if it’s unclear, both soldiers and cops tend to get off if it isn’t clear. And sometimes, in both cases, justice appears to have been avoided.

                Again, I see the good and bad in both. I don’t see the good in one and only the bad in in the other. That thinking, IMHO, goes a long way toward future mischief.

                • jroberts548

                  But when a cop murders someone, other cops aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to investigate, and DAs aren’t terribly interested in prosecuting. There’re routinely stories about cops doing something that would get any other American arrested and tried for murder, that never lead to anything happening to the cops.

                  • guest

                    Please tell me more about DAs who aren’t interested in prosecuting bad cops. Really, I’m all ears. Also provide a few facts to back up your opinions. You know, you’re entitled to your opinions, no matter how irrational. You’re not entitled to make up things and present them as fact.

                  • Dave G.

                    My objection is to the idea that God hath made the soldier slightly higher than the angels, but verily are the jack booted thugs a rascally brood. That smacks of good old Woodstock generation thinking. I prefer to see that bad can come of both, abuses in the government can be manifested in both, and both tend to have the same mixture of good and bad. Rather than elevate the soldiers but those rascal cops are proof of no good. To me, that misses so many things. Any bad thing said about one can be said about the other, and the good of one easily applies to the good of the other. Focus should demonstrate this.

      • Stu

        They bought it as military surplus to save money. They didn’t buy it because it was originally designed to combat IEDs, they bought it because it can be repurposed for their needs at low cost.

        Now, do they need it? Maybe not and I’m skeptical myself. But let’s not mischaracterize what is going on here.

        • meunke

          No no! We must panic right away! The rapists with badges are coming!!!

        • jroberts548

          What non-IED need is there? What possible use do they have for a mine-proof vehicle? What combat needs do they have?

          • Stu

            You keep focusing on the that the it is mine proof. While that is what it was designed for by the military, that’s not why the police obtained it. They brought for $2,000 from the DOD because it will meet their needs as an armored vehicle. If it will protect from a mine, it will certainly protect from gunfire. They have repurposed the asset for a tiny cost.

            Do they need it? It could be used to simply ride into a fire fight by multiple shooters or even a lone gunman on a rampage. Could something else meet those same needs? Absolutely, but for the cost of $2000?

            • meunke

              You can’t even get a good large passenger van for $2000.

            • James Scott

              That seems the likely explanation rather then as a precursor for the Government to “take over” one day.

              Maybe they will “take over” but there is no reason to believe getting this vehicle has something to do with it.

              • Stu

                Exactly. Should we have some concern about the militarization of our police departments? Yes. But when people go off all hysterical without knowing the facts and make bad conclusions they just lose credibility.

                • meunke

                  The military sells TONS (literally) of stuff at garage sale prices to get rid of it. Either that or they just destroy it.

                  Two of our neighbors back home were part of Desert Storm and when they were packing up, they were tasked with destroying ENORMOUS amounts of small arms and artillery shells. Why? Cheaper and easier to do that than try to pack them all up again.

                  The military will frequently sell a lot of their weapons off. There were quite a few police departments that got bargain priced M16A1s when the Army switched over. I think they only bought them to help with all the raping they do, though. Must be.

            • jroberts548

              It doesn’t cost $2000. It costs $700,000. That $700,000 cost was born by taxpayers, just not solely by the taxpayers of the police department in question. If congress makes the dod buy too much equipment and then give it away to cops, it’s still not a good deal for anyone except for the cop who gets a nice new toy.

              • Stu

                I would invite you to read the article and some additional background.

                Indeed the MRAP cost around $700K to produce but the police department bought it for $2000 from DOD as part of program to get some use out of these vehicles, that are no longer needed, rather than let them rust away in the desert or chop them up.

                Given their construction, they can ALSO be used by police departments to fulfill the role of a an armored vehicle.

                It’s not necessarily a case of Congress procuring too much, but rather procuring something that was needed at the time and then the situation changed.

                • jroberts548

                  It only has 5000 miles on it, and is part of an almost 5 Billion dollar program.

                  ETA: I should add a caveat. I have no idea what the useful life of an MRAP is. My gut tells me 5000 miles means it’s basically new, but maybe MRAPs are poorly made (they are American vehicles) and a 5000 mile MRAP has already given the army $698,000 worth of use.

                  • Stu

                    If there is no use for it, then keeping it costs money. You don’t make business decisions based upon sunk costs.

          • chezami

            Some of them old New Yorkers living in Florida can get crotchey when cable starts acting up, buster.

            • James Scott

              What does someone on the left Coast who lives in the State of Washington know about New Yorkers or what make us crotchey?

              Plueez! I’z gots ya crotcey right her buddy!

              Go drink a latte! We drink Coffee( pronounced Khor fee)!

              • guest

                Our police department has something similar. They use it to provide a police presence in areas that are in the middle of gang wars. These are situations when the residents of the neighborhoods who are not in the gangs cannot leave their homes. They stay home from work, they do not let their children go to school or out to play, because they are afraid of getting caught in the crossfire. Even staying inside has risks – in my city a child was killed last year in his bed because a stray bullet came through his window and shot him. Two gangs were fighting in the street behind his house.

                The police officers enter these areas in the armored vehicle and try to maintain the peace. Pretty damn nefarious stuff, there.

      • guest

        Just tried a case this week where a cop was shot at while chasing down an armed robber. Yep, that raping, murdering dog answered the 911 call of the citizen and chased an armed robber on foot to protect the public. Turned the corner and got shot at. Fortunately, it missed, but still …. let’s generalize that cops rape and murder because by golly that’s just a lot more fun!

        There were 3 cases of shots fired at officers in my medium sized midwest city in 2013. Maybe that’s not much of a risk to you, sitting safely behind your computer screen.

        • jroberts548

          1. Not all, or even many, cops are rapists and murderers. They just tolerate the rare rapist and murderer that they work beside.

          2. Cops face less risk than delivery men. They face more risk from bad driving than they do from armed criminals. It does no one any good to overvalue the risk they face generally, or specific sources of risk. I don’t care what anecdotes you have. Cops should be able to be at least as brave as garbage men, and they should be more worried about their own driving abilities than about getting shot.

          • guest

            Facts? Pretty please? Will that persuade you to cite some statistics and facts to support these opinions of yours? I’m willing to be persuaded on this, but certainly not by opinion alone.

            • jroberts548

              http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

              Most of the comparisons are there. There’re other BLS releases as well that corroborate. Though, BLS has “labor” in its name, so it’s probably some sort of lefty organization that can’t be trusted.

              • guest

                Ok, so garbage men had 26 fatal work injuries in 2012. Police and sheriff patrol officer had 104 fatal work injuries in 2012. Fatal work injuries to delivery men weren’t parsed out. Only fatal injuries were included – not non-fatal injuries or other risks, such as being shot at or hit by a car during a traffic stop or while assisting a stranded motorist.

                How in the world do you think this supports your conclusions?

          • Dave G.

            Cops killed in the line of duty. No big deal.

            The Catholic Blogosphere 2014. Kinda makes me proud.

            • jroberts548

              It’s not a bigger deal than dead garbagemen. Both are invaluable public servants. Both do a job that I wouldn’t want to do. But it’s only the people in safer job that turns the risk they bear into justification to engage in all manner of violent abuse.

    • Dbom

      So who is dropping the land mines in the US streets again?

      I wonder…

      • Dave G.

        Hopefully nobody yet. Of course we can wait until after it happens. That’s the modern way.

  • meunke

    Please take a breath, everyone.

    Do I approve of the purchase of military hardware like this? No.

    However, I very much doubt that the Miami PD all sit around after hours plotting how they can better prepare to stamp on the faces of civilians. This has the exact same smell and feel as the highway department when it tears up perfectly good roads: if that budget isn’t spent, they lose it.

    The military contracts are practically tapped out. Where else are they going to sell their toys? I’m betting under the table subsidies were involved too.

    To be honest, local police departments having a mine-proof vehicle doesn’t worry (it angers me as a waste of tax funds, but that’s a different matter). Local police are not going to be the Orwelian storm trooper armies some people seem to think. Those same people, I’ve noticed, usually don’t know any local cops. Feds may be a different matter, and your mileage may vary there.

    But hey, Patrick Henry was also a big supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for the very reason…

    • jroberts548

      If you give a bunch of wannabe soldiers who couldn’t meet the pt standards a tank or other military vehicle, they’re going to use it.

      See, e.g., http://gawker.com/5836445/steven-seagal-americas-sheriff-sued-over-tank-raid-puppy-death

      People who think local cops aren’t Orwellian storm troopers aren’t paying attention.

      • meunke

        Your link is facepalm worthy and not in any way the standard for local police. I can’t view the link as I’m at work and gawker is blocked. But from the link title… Seagal is a media wh0re trying to regain his popularity. That something like this happened due to that doesn’t surprise me. BTW ‘Dog the Bounty Hunter’ is not a reflection of real private investigation either.

        You also may not know this, but quite a few police are ex military.

        You should try to get to know some police. Your comments make me think you know none.

        • jroberts548

          Seagal conducted the raid under the supervision if Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He conducted the raid as an actual deputy of an actual sheriff. He drove a tank into a house on the suspicion that the house was linked to cockfighting.

          Also, if you can’t view the link, how do you know it’s face palm worthy?

          • meunke

            You’re not helping your argument.

            “Seagal conducted the raid under the supervision if Sheriff Joe Arpaio.”
            - Ah yes, two media wh0res. I fail to see how this means such behavior is standard for local law enforcement.

            • jroberts548

              Is Arpaio not local law enforcement? Do you only count true Scottish cops?

              • meunke

                No, I just don’t count media wh0res. Kind of like I don’t consider Paris Hilton to be an ‘average local girl’.

                • jroberts548

                  I just went to the first story involving cops misusing a military vehicle just because they can. That is not the only story of police misbehavior, or of cops needlessly and abusively using SWAT teams and military equipment.

                  See, for instance, this Texas SWAT raid of a farm: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/texas-swat-team-conducts-_n_3764951.html

                  Or when a SWAT team shoots a marine for no reason: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/jose-guerena_n_3988658.html

                  Or when cops literally rape someone for 12 hours and then bill their rape victim: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/11/07/something-needs-clenching/

                  Or when cops rape someone else: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/12/20/a-new-low-vaginal-probes-at-the-border/

                  Or when cops straight up murder an unarmed, handcuffed teenage in the back of their cop car: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/06/3439281/family-seeks-answers-in-durham.html

                  If cops can’t manage not to murder or rape people in their custody, then they shouldn’t be trusted with military vehicles.

                  • meunke

                    I think you misunderstand me. I am not defending misdeeds. Even with the links you posted, these are not the rule for all police any more than it is valid to say that ‘ All priests are pedophiles.’ If I were saying that these things NEVER happen, you might have a point. As it is, you are thrashing a strawman.

                    Those who violate the authority and trust they have been given should be punished for it. But posting the misdeeds of a few as an attempt to slander the majority of an entire profession doesn’t strike me as logical, which is exactly what you’re doing.

                    • jroberts548

                      I’m not saying all cops are bad. I’m sure many cops are good, honest people. I’m a white guy from South Carolina. I’m sure my ancestors, some of whom lived long enough to meet me, were good people even while tolerating (or, further back, practicing) various forms of institutionalized racism.

                      The problem, however, is that cops are far too tolerant of misdeeds by other cops, and, as a result, cops can literally rape and murder people with impunity. Until cops stop standing up for their rapist, murdering colleagues, they shouldn’t be trusted with badges or guns, let alone with military vehicles.

                      ETA: Likewise, if priests stood up for other priests who raped children, then they too would deserve contempt. Many of the Bishops from the 70s and 80s deserve contempt. If the Church hadn’t put in better procedures, it would still be wrong to assume all priests are child-rapists, but it would be insane to trust one with your child.

                    • meunke

                      Hmmm, I think you need to actually get to know some police. The only ones it appears by your rants you know are high profile abusers and the ones in your head.

                      And no, read your comments above. You DID slander the entire profession. Get some perspective, sir.

                    • jroberts548

                      Most individual cops are good people. Most cops at the level of police departments and police unions are perfectly willing to conduct SWAT raids for no discernible reason, putting themselves and the public at risk, and are willing to protect their brothers who literally murder and rape people.

                    • meunke

                      “Most cops” – Really? Got proof of that? No, no you don’t.

                      Like I said, get some perspective, sir. You are SORELY lacking.

                    • jroberts548

                      Do you have proof that any cops don’t tolerate working alongside murderers and rapists?

                    • meunke

                      So, dodging the question, eh? I’m not the one slandering an entire profession. Get a grip on yourself. Now you’re starting to sound more and more like someone who just got issued a traffic ticket.

                      There’s no talking to you. You’ve cemented your irrationality. Carry on, I guess.

                    • jroberts548

                      How many cops have quit the Durham police department because of Jesus Huerta? Have any cops?

                      Have any cops or their unions come out and said they need to crackdown on police abuse? That they should stop shooting dogs needlessly, or stop using SWAT teams needlessly?

                      How many cops have resigned rather than work for the same department that raped David Eckert for 12 hours? Have any?

                      Cops aren’t there to protect us. They’re there to protect cops.

                    • meunke

                      Wll you pledge to immediately quit your job if anyone in your company commits an evil act?

                      But please, if you wake up in the middle of the night thinking someone may be trying to break into your house, do not call 911. They’ll just send one of those murdering/raping cops. And you don’t want them showing up… Grow up, man. I’m not talking to you anymore.

                    • jroberts548

                      A rapping cop would be a step in the right direction.

                      If one of my coworkers, while in the course and scope of his employment, murdered someone, and all my supervisors and coworkers cared more about protecting my coworker than they cared about his victim, then I would immediately quit my job.

                      And people who call cops for help do put themselves at risk. Frequently, the risk the cop poses will be less than the risk a burglar poses, but the risk is there. See, e.g., any number of stories of cops shooting suicidal people whom they were called to help, or shooting motorists having seizures. At least the burglar thinks he can’t shoot me or my dog with impunity.

                    • guest

                      I’m sure you realize it’s impossible to prove a negative, so I assume that’s a rhetorical question.

                    • jroberts548

                      If there was a cop who didn’t tolerate cops murdering and raping with impunity, that would manifest as a positive – e.g., speaking out, resigning, etc.

                  • guest

                    Can you please cite to some factual sources that actually support your generalization that “police murder or rape people in their custody”? The simple justice link you provided is so overtly biased, inflammatory and hysterical that it’s nothing more than a rant and doesn’t merit serious consideration. Tons of opinion, very few facts. The fact that you’re calling an anal cavity search RAPE doesn’t lend you credibility, either.

                    The case involving the handcuffed teenager is certainly concerning, but to conclude that the cop murdered him is out there. The autopsy revealed he died of what could have been a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head, firearm identification concluded the shot was not fired from a police issued weapon, and there was no evidence (presumably GSR) that the officer had shot a weapon that night, so what exactly is the evidence of murder?

                    Police are not perfect. Some are exemplary examples of courage and integrity, some are just on the other side of the line of the criminals, and most are just decent people trying to do a tough job. Hysterical, inflammatory and frankly ignorant allegations are easy to ignore and, like the boy who cried wolf, can diminish actual allegations of misconduct, fraud and abuse.

                    • jroberts548

                      The cops in New Mexico sodomized a man repeatedly, for hours, with no probable cause. Did he consent? Did they insert something in his anus? That’s a rape. That’s the legal definition of rape in New Mexico. If I abducted someone on the side of the road in New Mexico, and forcibly and without his consent spent the next twelve hours sticking things in his anus, I would, rightly, go to prison.

                      Likewise, if I handcuffed an unarmed teenager, put him in the back of my car, and then he somehow ended up getting shot, the response wouldn’t be a paid vacation.

                      And if you don’t like the blog linked to, click through to the normal news source.

                    • guest

                      I’m sure you are fully aware that when you use terms like rape and sodomy most people, who won’t actually go read your links, assume that the police, using their genitals, sexually assaulted someone. Rape and forcible sodomy are horrendous, disgusting crimes and I’m sure it serves your purpose to identify them with police. It’s intellectually dishonest to be so misleading in an argument and it makes you look like a police hating fanatic.

                      Yes, the New Mexico case is bizarre and awful. But you leave out pertinent facts — that this was all done with the permission of a search warrant, by physicians, in a hospital. That is not the police raping and sodomizing someone. I tried to find an actual copy of the search warrant complaint to see the grounds on which this was allowed, but couldn’t after a few minutes and went back to my life.

                      And as someone who is actually involved in charging and prosecuting murder cases on a regular basis, I can tell you with absolute certainty that no one – police or drug dealer – could legitimately be charged with murder based on the facts available in the handcuffed teenager case.

                    • jroberts548

                      In New Mexico, sodomizing someone with an object is rape.

                      If you’re actually involved in prosecuting cases, then you know that in many jurisdictions rape with an object is rape. If you don’t know that, you’re lying and you have not prosecuted anything. Or you’re some sort of ghost who was a lawyer before many jurisdictions expanded the definition of rape.

                    • guest

                      You insist on missing the point. Yes, the definition of sexual penetration includes inserting an object into the anus or vagina. However, most state statutes specifically exclude medical acts from this definition – otherwise, every yearly pap exam or prostate exam would be a sexual assault.

                      The point is the police did not insert their fingers or anything into this guy’s anus. It was done by physicians, at a hospital, with a judge’s permission via search warrant. There’s a lot to question here, but insisting on saying the police raped and sodomized this man is ridiculous.

                    • jroberts548

                      Were they looking for polyps? Do doctors get to probe you without your consent? It wasn’t a medical procedure.

                      Even giving the cops every benefit of the doubt (more than they ave their victim), how many times do they need to penetrate their victim to determine that there weren’t any drugs?

                    • guest

                      I’ll give this one last try. The police didn’t penetrate him. Doctors did.

                      As I said, there’s a lot to question here. I would start with the search warrant complaint and look at the grounds, which essentially is looking at the police’s conduct. Then I’d go on to the judge and his/her review of the grounds and his/her actual search warrant and see what precisely was authorized. Then I’d go on to the physicians and look at why they went to the extremes they did. There were allegations this guy was known to traffic in drugs and had previously hidden drugs in his anus. There are cases where people have had bags of drugs explode/dissolve in their GI tract and they died as a result. Our jail was sued for not thoroughly checking an inmate and he swallowed his baggie of cocaine and it dissolved in his stomach and he died in jail and his family sued the county. The case was dismissed, but agencies overreact to stuff like that.

                      I’m am not saying this was ok or justified by any means – I am saying that it looks like there were a lot of process problems and judgment errors down the line and those of you who insist on screaming “the police raped this guy for 12 hours!!!!!” are missing an opportunity to maybe correct an actual problem.

      • Dave G.

        So I take it you learned everything there is to know about the police by watching Burt Reynolds movies?

    • Dbom

      “Local police are not going to be the Orwelian storm trooper armies some people seem to think. ”

      Read Gulag Archipelago and tell me about the Blue Hats and who wore them.

      Hint: it wasn’t some dude from out of state.

      Wake up!

      • meunke

        How many cops do you know? It’s obvious: zero.

      • guest

        My community has something similar – it’s a heavy armored vehicle and it’s used to provide a police presence in areas where a lot of gang gunfights occur. In these situations the people who live in the neighborhood are pretty much under siege. They are afraid to leave their homes to go to work, to let their kids go to school or play outside, for fear of getting caught in the crossfire, which can erupt without warning. Stray bullets enter houses and people have been shot and one child killed while in their home. The police use the armored vehicle to enter these areas and maintain the peace.

  • PeonyMoss

    Florida? They better hope that thing doesn’t make its own sinkhole.

  • Dbom

    Instead of just “breathing” let’s “think” for a moment….as Christians who believe in original sin.

    What does one do with extraordinary power? Is it easy to abuse that power? Can it be hard not to chose to abuse that power especially when not being protected by God’ Grace? Especially when living in a callous world like our own?

    Hmmmm.

    Last thing: He is a fool who says “It can’t happen here”.

    A true fool!

    • meunke

      You’re right. We should probably jump to conclusions right away. That’s what rational people do.

      • Dbom

        Your right.

        Nothing to see here.

        Trust the .GOV.

        I mean, Meunke said so, and well, when has the .GOV done anything against it’s citizens?

        Vigilance is futile. Got ya! The Founding Fathers would be proud of your lack of concern.

        • meunke

          The Founding Fathers would be men enough not to freak out like shrieking toddlers the moment a police department on a tight budget bought a re-purposed vehicle. There is enough to be genuinely concerned about without frantically losing your mind over every little you read on Infowars.

          Shouldn’t you be outside checking for Chemtrails?

          • Dbom

            Yes I should be!!

            And it bothers me that I can’t because I’m fighting with you on the internets.

            My life stinks!

          • jroberts548

            The founding fathers literally committed treason against their government, partly on the grounds of it using its military against them. However, they weren’t so much “freak[ing] out like shrieking toddlers” as they were engaged in armed rebellion.

            • meunke

              Unless you are proposing armed rebellion is a sane response to the police buying a budget re-purposed vehicle, your comment adds nothing to the discussion.

              • jroberts548

                You’re the one who brought the founding fathers into it.

                • meunke

                  Uhm, no, I wasn’t. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Just don’t work on it on infowars. You’re paranoid enough at this point.

                  • jroberts548

                    Sorry. You’re correct. Dbom did.

                    You did say that they wouldn’t freak out in response to our increasingly militarized police force. They would. They did. They didn’t even think we should have a standing army.

                    • meunke

                      *facepalm* Please go here.

                      No. What I said was “The Founding Fathers would be men enough not to freak out like shrieking
                      toddlers the moment a police department on a tight budget bought a
                      re-purposed vehicle.” That is NOT saying that they wouldn’t be very concerned about the militarization of the government overall.

                      Somehow I don’t see Thomas Jefferson or George Washington losing his mind in a shriek fest in a public square because a British ship purchased an extra 4 pounder off of a decommissioned frigate, adding darkly that they were all probably a bunch of rapists too.

                      Speaking as someone who has read them, they had a bit more perspective than that.

                    • jroberts548

                      You’re right. I cede defeat. The founding fathers would be perfectly cool with the British using cannon for civilian law enforcement.

                    • RufusChoate

                      You need to read the papers of the time. They did freak out over far less than this in a time when even considering rebellion was a capital offense.

              • RufusChoate

                One small item of oppression is but a sign of the general tyranny.

          • RufusChoate

            Really, I am always amused at the claims the “Founder’s” would not have been concerned by the advent of some new oppression or taxation to fund the behemoth of government. The Founders went to war with the most powerful military in the 19th Century over a 1/2 pence tax on Tea and various tiny charges on Legal documents along with the compensated housing of British troops in private homes.

            If they were alive today to examine the level of oppression Free American Citizens endure they would fill the trees with the corpses of our political class and burn it to the ground to efface its blight on this land.

  • kirthigdon

    I’d recommend reading Radley Balko’s “Rise of the Warrior Cop” for a chilling history of the progressive militarization of police forces at all levels and their use as an occupying army against the population in general. What the US routinely inflicts on much of the rest of the world is more and more coming home to roost. Of course, there is occasional comic relief in the process – like the Texas sheriff’s department which managed to crash their drone into their armored vehicle.
    Kirt Higdon

    • Terenc Blakely

      “What the US routinely inflicts on much of the rest of the world”
      You do realize that you have to be real obnoxious for an extended period of time to actually get on the receiving end of US aggression?

      • TheNuszAbides

        You do realize that your choices of phrase – “real obnoxious” and “US aggression” – are a whopper of false equivalence?

  • RufusChoate

    My Grand Father and Great Grand Father (One a Chief of County Detectives and the other a highly decorated Police Captain who is legendary in the 3rd largest city in America starting service in 1918 and retiring in 1968) commented years ago that the whole concept of the Special Weapons and Tactics was wrong because they said they weren’t Cops but Soldiers. They had no trouble with Police having Machine Guns or Citizens having Machine Guns for that matter but they viewed Police Officers as Keepers of the Peace and one didn’t keep the peace with a sniper rifle and a squad of soldiers going to war with your fellow citizens.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X