officers are not acting the way members of the military would. Pointing weapons at civilians
In my opinion and many others, it's very stupid to point a loaded gun at a innocent civilian. And we especially shouldn't be giving such military based guns to police officers because they aren't trained like soldiers on how to used the automatic guns.
combat veterans have since pointed out that the SWAT officers are more heavily armed and outfitted than they themselves were while patrolling the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan.
This is also crazy that veterans say they had less protection in Iraq or Afghanistan during war than the police officers have here.
seen law enforcement officials equipped with: short-barreled 5.56-mm rifles with high-powered scopes, six extra magazines, loaded with 30 rounds each, heavy body armor, military camouflage, and all of this riding around in armored trucks resembling mine-resistant vehicles used on the battlefield.
This is way too much military equipment. A police officer isn't up agains a whole country fighting for their lives and their own country. A police officers is up agains those violating the laws. Police officers also aren't fighting anybody, unless needed to, but they are restoring peace among the country. They don't need all these bullets to take down hundreds of people if they are supposed to be providing peace.
attempt to disperse the largely peaceful demonstrations organized to protest Brown's death.
Wearing equipment suited for foreign battlefields while trying to stop the peaceful acts displayed for a teens death. This doesn't seem necessary at all and it causes people to become more upset and scared or threatened when they see the officers in this kind of apparel.
According to some reports, upwards of 70 officers decked out not just in riot gear, but in equipment suited for foreign battlefields, took to the streets
Why do the police officers have to be in equipment that is for foreign battlefield situations? Why do they even have access to it if they wont be in a situation in a foreign battlefield?
Actual Military Veterans Say Cops In Ferguson Are Excessively Armed, Untrained Wannabes
This title shows that the soldiers are upset with police militarization.
Four-year colleges and universities may have remote campuses but are normally found in larger communities.
If you want to get away from home and have a chance to start over new and meet a lot of new people, then go away to a university.
Community colleges are spaced all throughout the country in rural and urban communities and sometimes have multiple campuses.
If you like being close to home or don't want to leave home, then there should be a community college relatively near by.
Vocational programs allow students to take classes that are specifically linked to certain careers.
These programs offered by community colleges are a lot shorter than 4 years at a university but the major difference is whether you want a certificate or a degree because a degree will get you further but it'll take you longer and a certificate wont take you as long to receive but you can only do so much with it.
Four-year colleges may have similar classes but you will earn a degree in that program rather than go straight into certification.
Some jobs require degrees over certifications now and if that is so, then a university is where the person getting the education for the job should go.
Rural colleges may offer more agriculture classes, while urban colleges may have more technology classes.
I've honestly never thought of this being a difference in colleges. It does make sense for colleges in specific places to provide education that is geared to the location they are in.
community colleges serve age ranges from 16-65+
You can find 16 year olds at community colleges doing a running start program or just starting their education early. You can also find older adults going to a community college to either further their education because some jobs are now requiring more years of college or they are just now starting off their college career because the demand for a college degree in some jobs is higher now compared to when they were younger and it's harder for them to find a career they want without the degree.
Four-year colleges are known to have a majority of “traditional aged” students (18-25)
If you'd rather be around people that are younger then most universities are younger. So if you're just now getting out of high school or just got an associates degree and you're in your early 20's then you'll be around the same aged people at a university.
Cost varies depending on whether the institution is public or private
Overall, community college is cheaper.
It is important to know which degree type is preferred for your future professional objective.
In my opinion, if the job you are going to school for only requires two years of college, go to the community college if money matters because it is a lot cheaper! But if money doesn't matter, then it's up to you to weigh the pros and cons of each type of college.
four-year colleges your general classes can surpass 100 students.
If you don't care about asking questions in the middle of a class and you'd rather go to the professors office hours, then this may be better for you. Also if you don't care about knowing your professor or classmates then a university class should work fine for you.
community colleges won’t exceed 30 per class
Therefore, if you like being able to ask questions in the middle of class then you'll be able to. If you want to have a closer relationship with your professor and actually have them know your name, this is for you. If you don't like being around a bunch of people in a room, this is for you. If you want to know the people in you class, this is for you because there wont be 100+ people to get to know.
Understanding your options for higher education is key to determine what best fits you as a student.
I picked this article/ blog because of this statement. Many students or soon to be students don't know the difference between a community college and a university. I think that more people need to be educated in the difference between the two in order pick the best type of college for them to go to.
“It still is up to local law enforcement to determine how and when and where and under what circumstances they use excess military equipment,” Kirby told reporters. “We don’t take a position on the way the equipment is being used.”
Which is wrong. This is why military equipment is misused.
Military vehicles can also be useful for search-and-rescue missions. “When there’s a natural disaster … you [may] need vehicles like a Humvee to go through high water to get to an area that normally you wouldn’t get to,” Johnson said.
I agree, military equipment can be and is used in natural disasters but by the national guard.
“The bad guys had military-grade body armor … They were able to keep going and shoot and do damage” and the police officers’ regular duty weapons “weren’t doing anything,” he said.
We have national guard for a reason.
“Unfortunately in America today ... it’s so violent against the police that they really do need that level of protection.”
Maybe if we're that violent against the police, they can call in the national guard. Also people are sometimes only violent because they are afraid of the police and I would be too if I had a MRAP driving down my street!
Just because the Pentagon doesn’t need a particular item doesn’t mean law enforcement agencies can use it. The logistics agency has to approve every type of item that can be transferred. “No, you can’t have a damn tank,” the official said.
Well that's something! The police weren't allowed a tank. But don't worry, they're allowed basically everything else it seems like! (sarcasm)
Much of the gear is non-military items, such as office equipment, blankets and sleeping bags, computers, digital cameras and video recorders, binoculars, flashlights, extreme weather clothing, repair tools, first-aid supplies and TVs.
This could be the answer of what the other 95% is, but still, MRAPs and aircraft aren't needed by police forces.
Some of the items — Humvees, mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles, aircraft (rotary and fixed wing), boats, sniper scopes and M-16s — raise eyebrows. But only about 5 percent of the equipment is weapons, and fewer than 1 percent is tactical vehicles, according to the defense official.
I highly doubt that only 5% is weapons and less than 1% is tactical vehicles. What would the other 94% of it be then? Military uniforms? Which are also being misused by police officers.
“We don’t push equipment on anybody ...”
Who wouldn't pass up free military equipment?! Just cause they didn't force the police to take it doesn't mean the police should have it.
The theory behind the initiative was that the military’s unneeded equipment might as well be put to good use, rather than be destroyed or warehoused.
"The theory", this isn't really a good reason to give police such powerful equipment because they aren't required to have it. The national guard is here for a reason. They even have better equipment that what the police departments are getting so why not let the national guard be in charge of the big equipment here at home?
what safeguards are in place to ensure that weapons and vehicles designed for combat zones are used responsibly in towns like Ferguson?
Exactly. Who is to make sure the equipment is used correctly when it must be used within a years time in order to be kept, disregarding how it is used.
How their green camouflage would aid them in a real urban school shooting is hard to fathom
Exactly. Why would camouflage be needed during a school shooting? It's not like the school is decorated like a war zone with desert land or marsh land. Camouflage shouldn't be used by police officers since they aren't going to be in areas or situations where they need to "blend in".
it's problematic when police officers dress and arm themselves like combat soldiers,
It really is problematic because the citizens seeing police dressed like soldiers can develop more fear thinking that something is really wrong but in reality, it's just the police blowing whatever they are facing out of proportion thinking they need to be dressed for war.
Those in the arena who didn't hear the announcement over the loudspeaker doubtless thought that they were watching a young enlistee back from fighting in Afghanistan or soon to deploy abroad.
This is awful. I even think that it should be called impersonation. The crowd even thought he was a soldier!
hands a puck to officer Joe Reginek of the St. Paul Police SWAT team for a ceremonial puck drop after Reginek rappelled to the ice from the rafters
It's ridiculous that this police officer rappelled from the rafters in what looks like army or military apparel and he's not even a soldier.
That is not a special forces soldier dangling from the roof of the arena in camouflage
It's not a soldier? Well then why is he dressed like he is a soldier? sarcasm
Police can make themselves less safe by being overly aggressive and militaristic.
I agree. When they are acting more militaristic and less community-oriented then the people start to fear them or even dislike them, which could cause harm to them because they could be seen as a threat almost.
Ferguson authorities reacted in exactly the wrong way.
They created more fear in the citizens causing more reaction from them and more rioting.
Soldiers are not police and police are not soldiers. Therefore, police should stop acting like soldiers.
“If the only tool you have is a hammer,” Stamper adds, “the whole world is going to look like a nail to you.”
I highly agree with this. It almost makes me think of the Stanford Prison Experiment where the people who get to pretend to be the cops ended up taking it very seriously just because they were dressed like it and got to act like it. The police officers shouldn't be able to dress like they are about to go into war because that is how they are going to treat the citizens and the city they are patrolling, like a war and enemies.
officers begin to dress like soldiers, their uniform and vocabulary of war reinforces their mind-sets. As they become more soldierlike and less peace officer–like, they become distanced from the community
If they want to dress and act like soldiers, then stop being a police officer and become a soldier. We have soldiers for a reason and the police should not be trying to act like them, they need to stick to their real job description and not try to act like something they are not.
“There’s just one rule: the local agency that receives this property must use it within a year. That incentivizes irresponsible use of the equipment,”
This causes unnecessary use of the equipment because the weaponry is rarely ever needed, or maybe never needed at all. But in order to keep the weaponry, they use it for small cases just so they can say they used it at least once this year so they don't have to get rid of it.
“Seeing heavily armed police employing tactics in Ferguson is just a huge mistake,” Stamper says. “This is not a war
"This is not a war", EXACTLY! So why are the police officers allowed to be heavily armed like soldiers going off to war with huge bomb proof vehicles and all that? The police officers are over exaggerating situations due to fear and they think they need to be armed for war when in reality, it's just a community being upset for something the police originally started.
as early as the 1930s, and then even more so following World War II, police came to resemble soldiers
This is showing that the police have slowly been becoming more and more powerful over time for a long time, not just over the past few years. I still think police should not resemble soldiers at all though, they have their jobs as "peacekeepers and law enforcers" and the soldiers have their jobs. Police should not try to take on the jobs of soldiers. If police officers want more power then they should enlist in the army or military for the title of a soldier.
Joe Friday in Dragnet,
chided
Michael Brown shooting
machine guns;
Why do police officers need tens of thousands of machine guns? With what they have to do to keep the streets safe and discipline people, they shouldn't be able to have a machine gun that is capable of demolishing numerous people.
police departments
Just putting emphasis on "police departments". Why would a police department need a war vehicle with the work that they are supposed to be doing? If a war vehicle was necessary with whatever they are dealing with, then the national guard or army should be called in.
could violate privacy and constitutional protections.
COULD violate? I think it does violate our privacy when our personal information is spread all over the nation like stated in the above paragraph.
Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back
This is a good argument on what the police are calling "suspicious" in order to "act more aggressively in searching" people being waste of time for those that are wrongly accused of crimes due to suspicion and have to spend sometimes a year to get that accusation off their record or settled so they aren't found guilty.
The House I Live In. It won the Grand Jury Prize for U.S. Documentary this weekend at the Sundance Film Festival.
some credibility.
Less than 2 percent of the American population even identifies drugs as the nation’s top priority.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. Wow.
Ronald Reagan
The fact is, blacks don’t use crack more than anybody else. And as a result, because blacks are only 13 percent of the country, they’re 13 percent of the crack users. So the remaining crack users, i.e. the majority, are white and brown.
Just an argument about people calling "crack a black drug" from previous post.
crack is a black drug.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. This is putting the focus on african americans only for a drug that many other races participate in. This can also be correlated in how people are being wrongly sentenced because they are focusing more on blacks and crack, not the other races when it comes to this drug so there could be more african americans being incarcerated for crack because thats what they look for when arresting an african american person.
African Americans make up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population, 14 percent of the drug users, yet they represent 56 percent of those incarcerated— EUGENE JARECKI: Yeah. AMY GOODMAN: —for drug crimes.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. Sounds a little racist? But diffidently a good argument.
It’s something that our country can change. We can change everything else.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. So this just makes me wonder, why can't we change the drug problem in america? We've changed a lot of other laws. Smoking for example used to be allowed basically anywhere and over time, it's not even allowed on colleges or in restaurants on the "smoking side" and hotels don't even have smoking rooms anymore. So why can't we improve on other drugs like we did on smoking?
And at the end, he just got so tired of drugs, and he had injected himself so much with drugs, it was in his—in his feet. Just, you can’t even imagine the abuse, the suffering that people go through addicted to drugs. And it is a sad thing.
Showing more pathos.
Well, my son, which is deceased, his name is James Jeter, my youngest son. And he got on drugs when he was about 14.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. This is using pathos, appealing to the persons emotions that is reading or watching this documentary.
failures
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. Proof that the war is a failure.
Over the last 40 years, more than 45 million drug-related arrests have cost an estimated $1 trillion. Yet drugs are cheaper, purer and more available today than ever.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. This is proof that the war on drugs is costing us more than it is helping us.
emanates
The Drake portion of this music video begins with 28 straight seconds of unedited Drake doing things. These are new waters for him: not just the dancing, but consistently existing on camera, with help from no one, needing to be interesting the entire time.
It's almost as if they are praising him for actually being in his own music video.
James Turrell biodome
Drakes dance was inspired by James Turrell
costly failure
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. The reason the war on drugs is a costly failure is because they are putting people in prison and paying for them to live there for sometimes a small drug offense. Money could be saved if it wasn't spent on supporting people in prison when they could've just been punished in a smaller way other than time or life in prison.
The Sentencing Project, which advocates fir reforms iun sentencing policies; and the Drug Policy Alliance, which works to change unjust laws at the federal and local levels.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. This project could really help prevent people from getting wrongly sentenced!
"I saw how this misguided approach has helped make America the world's largest jailer, imprisoning her citizens at a higher rate per capita than any other nation on earth."
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. This is some evidence to my thesis. Since we have the highest rates, there's no doubt that people are being wrongly sentenced.
He has no choice but to give life sentences to defendants arrested for possession of a small amount of drugs.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. Once again, proof that drug offenders are wrongly punished! Just for a small amount of drugs, a persons life is gone. And there's no chance to turn it around in prison. No second chance. There is such thing as being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, laws enacted in the 1980s allow cops to pull over any car and search for drugs, even if they find nothing and make no arrests.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. This organization specifically targets only drug offenders. What about rapists? Or other law offenders? because when these people get caught they get wrongly prosecuted.
large sums of cash they find.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. Why do they get to take large sums of money? What if someone was on their way to go buy a car in cash?!
large sums of cash they find.
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime. Why do they get to take large sums of money? What if someone was on their way to go buy a car in cash?!
"War on Drugs,"
Throughout the documentary, many people discuss how they haven't even heard of the "war on drugs".
Americas war on drugs is wrongly punishing drug law offenders with sentences that don't match their crime.