Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Hurricane Harvey Is Proof We Need To Militarize Our Police Forces
from the say-what-now? dept
Earlier this week, we wrote about Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions bringing back the Defense Department’s 1033 program, which helped militarize local police forces with surplus military equipment. We’ve been covering all sorts of problems with the 1033 program over the years, and people like Radley Balko have written entire books on the problem. And the previous ban on the 1033 only put a fairly narrow limit on the practice of militarizing police — but now even those modest limits are gone.
What’s truly incredible, however, is the complete nonsense being used to justify this. Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a speech about this on Monday, in which he trotted out his standard misleading and out-of-context stats, falsely claiming that there’s some massive new crimewave across the country, when there’s really just been a tiny bump after decades of decline in crime rates (the use of percentages by Sessions shows the he likely knows the absolute numbers are so meaningless that he has to mislead with percentages working off a small base).
But, even with the usual misleading claims about violence and violence directed towards police, I still never expected him to… point to Houston and the impact of Hurricane Harvey as a reason for increased police militarization. But that’s exactly what he did:
Those restrictions went too far. We will not put superficial concerns above public safety. All you need to do is turn on a tv right now to see that for Houstonians this isn?t about appearances, its about getting the job done and getting everyone to safety.
Wait. Law enforcement in Houston needs surplus military equipment to rescue people? Last I’ve seen it’s been tons of good hearted people using boats of all kinds going around and rescuing people. I don’t see much need for military equipment.
Once again, this looks like law enforcement using “any means necessary” to justify getting their military surplus toys, despite tremendous evidence of how this process is abused, how it harms community relations and how it leads to civil rights of the public being violated. To point to the disaster in Houston as a reason for restarting the program is not just frivolous, it’s dangerous.
Filed Under: 1033, doj, hurricane harvey, jeff sessions, police, police militarization
Comments on “Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Hurricane Harvey Is Proof We Need To Militarize Our Police Forces”
Military Equipment for Houston
No, they don’t.
What about…
There is a massive need for military equipment in Houston. Operated by the military. Not by law enforcement.
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
Yet, they called in the Texas National Guard that has this equipment.
Giving some Military gear (Vests, small arms, etc) is ok.
Why do the cops need grenade launcher, 50Cal guns, Tanks, etc? This stuff needs to stay with the Military, and controlled by the Military.
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
A rowboat reaction-propelled by firing RPGs off the stern is faster? ¯(ツ)/¯
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
I believe the reason that this give-away to law enforcement went on for years previously, and now is likely to be resumed, is that it is quite popular with lawmakers who see it, not so much as a gift to law enforcement, but more importantly it is a give-away to defense contractors. It creates an additional market space for the defense industry to fill. Members of Congress believe the defense industry is a good source of jobs in their state, (and also a great source of campaign contributions.)
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
The chance of them taking rescue equipment instead of rocket launchers and machine guns is somewhere south of zero.
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
To be fair playing ‘Cops and Robbers: Military Surplus Edition’ is a lot more exciting than playing ‘Rescue’, and isn’t having fun why they took the job to begin with?
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
Well said. I recall hurricanes Agnes and Gloria on Long Island. The local Armory and such Commanders didn’t wait for orders (or permission) from DC, they got every piece of equipment THEY HAD TRAINED PERSONNEL TO RUN out on the roads helping even before the storms hit.
We could give street cops Apache helicopters to “help”, but they’re kind of useless without trained pilots.
Giving them grenade launchers and tanks isn’t any different.
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
There is a need for equipment. But it doesn’t have to be military. There really are such things as non-military vehicles, aircraft and ships.
Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
That isn’t what law enforcement requests from 1033, and LEOs are not the best at help and rescue in the first place.
I can just imagine drownings averted, only to be replaced by shooting and beatings because someone was too anxious or looked too… whatever. Also, you are going to have to let go of that baby so i can frisk and cuff you before pulling you out of the water, as my perceived personal safety overrides anything else.
Re: Re: Re: Military Equipment for Houston
And yet they are out there trying to help people, and you are sitting around typing things.
Well, not to be rude, but fuck you.
Re: Re: Re:2 Military Equipment for Houston
Trying to help people into jail, that is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Military Equipment for Houston
Said the AC sitting around typing things.
Re: Re: Re:3 Military Equipment for Houston
I am not the one criticizing those that are helping.
Re: Military Equipment for Houston
Exactly – the typical military inheritance law enforcement gets is armored vehicles and assault weapons. Just what I would want to be rescued by is a vehicle with the density and maneuverability of a boat anchor. IIRC, not a lot of those desert-ready vehicles were equipped with snorkels for the engines. they sure as hell aren’t amphibious.
Using a disaster like this to grandstand is particularly despicable Sessions. Other than that I’m with TechDescartes. The equipment IS needed. But it should be operated by the military.
Who Knew?
MRAP’s float!
Why do we keep the senile in office?
Re: Re:
The built-in excuse: “I’m so old my memory is gone.” Worked for Reagan so well that everyone else wants a go at it.
Re: Re: Re:
President Reagan – Mastermind (SNL)
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/lists/20-best-saturday-night-live-political-sketches-w481607/president-reagan-mastermind-12686-w481639
What about the fire ants?
To be fair, my first reaction upon seeing the pictures of floating mats of fire ant colonies involved the use of a lot of ordinance. Lots and lots of ordinance. From a great distance.
Re: What about the fire ants?
Interesting fact: Regular dish soap would actually be quite effective against those fire ant rafts. The soap will break the surface tension of the water and the raft will sink.
Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
apparently true, but go easy on the soap. it doesn’t just go away and will kill water sliders and other creatures that rely on surface tension for their existence as well.
consider soap a foreign chemical to open water.
Re: Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
ie, a little dab’ll do ya.
Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
Palm Olive will do the same and be soft on their tiny little hands.
Re: Re: Re: What about the fire ants?
Do you want fire ants? Because that’s how you get fire ants!
Re: What about the fire ants?
BREAK OUT THE FLAME THROWERS!
I was wrong, they need all that equipment! ANT’S ARE TAKING OVER TEXAS!!
Re: What about the fire ants?
Spelling matters. Which makes me think of a TLDR for the post:
We don’t want the military enforcing any ordinance and we don’t want the police touching any ordnance.
I can see the need for surplus 6×6 trucks, good in high water.
We don’t build levees to combat 100 year storms, but we need equipment for them?
Re: Re:
Even those 6×6 trucks aren’t high enough to use in most of the Houston area.
Law enforcement doesn’t need military equipment. They want it, to compensate for other things, but they don’t need it and it does nothing but generate the very “us vs. them” atmosphere they use to justify acquisition of the equipment.
Re: Re: Re:
When was the last time you saw “To Protect and Serve” on the side of a police vehicle?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chicago, today. It’s on the side of every CPD vehicle, though in a slightly different wording “We serve and protect”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
…but they don’t.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Uh, it’s the cars that serve and protect the police, dummy. It’s spelled out so that the policemen don’t catch a cold when they forget and stand unprotected in the rain.
It’s like the "I can be hot" signs on their coffee machines.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Au contrare.. They serve their own interests and protect each other from scrutiny.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s been years since I saw that on any police vehicle I’ve seen (I live in the northwest) and I look at every one I pass, just in the hope that there is still hope.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Last time I saw a pic of CPD, it was three leos hangin on a street corner where one of them is flipping off whomever was taking the photo.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Say what you want about Chicago, but they are still baseballs World Champions.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
and they know how to make a hot dog.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
And deep dish pizza, and no, Pizza Uno in your home town isn’t the same.
Re: Re:
As a former Houstonian, these “100 year” storms come about every 20 years or so. They’re worse on the city more recently NOT because the storms are any worse, but because newer construction done on roads and highways has blocked the paths to the bayous. The design up until about 1990 was for roads and highways to channel the flood waters straight into bayous around the city. If the storm was bad, you stayed off the roads until the storm was over, and things were fine. Now the water backs up and goes places it was never meant to go.
Re: Re: Re:
Eh, per the weather wonks the storms are more intense and drop more rain, so they are in fact worse.
The structural problems you’ve reference exacerbate the problems caused by high winds and ever-increasing rainfall.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*referenced
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t see how any “official” reading in Houston can be trusted after living there. Typical example: west of Houston near Katy (where I lived) would be a report of 2.5″. North of Houston would report 2.25″. East of Houston would be a report of 2″. South of Houston would be a report of 2.5″. The “official” rainfall reported by Intercontinental? “A trace”. That was extremely typical. Houston tends to get a LOT more rain than the official total. We always joked that the official rainfall was what leaked through the roof as the rain gauge was INSIDE.
Now storms ARE more powerful. I’m not a climate denier. But they aren’t so much more powerful that it’s overwhelming the provisions made to handle rain. As I mentioned before, it’s the changes in the roads that causing the problems. I sat through Alicia, and there weren’t major problems with flooding, but a decade later (and all the construction in the mean time) minor storms were causing severe flooding because of the changes made to the roads.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The weather service is part of the dishonest media. Sad!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Other Houstonians concur; building in the wrong places makes things worse; it actually slows drainage.
Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
Meteorologists predicted that the hurricane would strike farther south and west. Nature staged a sneak attack by hitting Houston instead. The police must be adequately militarized to meet these attacks in kind, and to retaliate against Nature with the full surplus might of the United States military.
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
Nature, and anyone who gets in their way or looks like a natural threat through their body-armored $50,000 night vision goggles.
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
Really. Why didn’t they use HAARP to combat the storm?
Oh. Maybe they did use HAARP… Need to fill those FEMA concentration camps somehow.
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
…to retaliate against Nature with the full surplus might of the United States military.
What, like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm1XUf6H_2w
Re: Hurricane Harvey was a surprise attack by nature
King Canute did it ironically. Trump & Sessions seem to be completely serious.
my bet is the bozos in and around the whitest of white houses see the police as mainly armed racists who will side with the supremacists in the war they and charlie manson want.
Re: Re:
You should look into joining your local police force to see if you can get yourself a surplus aluminum foil hat.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, but this happened: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/georgia-police-officer-resigns-racist-joke-kill-black-people-lieutenant-greg-abbot-cobb-country-a7923806.html
One cop says it; how many are thinking it?
Re: Re:
At least the cops did not mow down people (this time) simply because they wanted across a bridge to high ground.
Is he suggesting giving them submarines?
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Technically every vehicle is submersible. Most just aren’t designed to function afterwards.
Re: Re:
Wasn’t it Wyoming that wanted an aircraft carrier?
There were joking right?
Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
You could argue whether military help in emergencies is good — well, no, "let ’em drown" is untenable.
Let’s stick to military equipment for police in daily use, then. … Uh, why not? The actual use is all that matters, and while I agree that the trend of violent police is alarming, THAT is a separate problem. I’d also go along with the "have it will use" line, but that’s still mostly separate problem. — Of declining morals and unity under common law.
Anyway, there’s NO need for the headline to bring in the phony R/D division in "politics", because fact is that the Ds are not actually resisting the tyranny, either.
Yet I do fully expect that some here will immediately start arguing fictional distinctions between the "two parties" of The Establishment.
Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
The headline:
So who exactly brought up the R/D thing now?
I’m pretty sure most of those people are responding to a request from the authorities for people with boats, not people doing it of their own initiative. That said, those boats aren’t military equipment, so militarizing the police would not have kept them from needing to make the same request.
Re: Re:
“I’m pretty sure most of those people are responding to a request from the authorities for people with boats, not people doing it of their own initiative. “
I think you are wrong, but then what do I know?
Are you there? Have eye witness accounts? Have you watched the news – where they ask the people with boats about what they are doing?
Re: Re:
That’s a slap in the face to all those volunteers, suggesting that the only reason they are doing so is because they were somehow coerced or ordered to do so by "the authorities".
F U!
Re: Re: Re:
On Twitter I’ve seen queues of people waiting to volunteer. That means they’re not being coerced, they’re doing it of their own accord. Good on them!
Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
…no.
What’s needed instead are exactly the kinds of resources that this administration wants to strip out of FEMA: simple, basic essentials that are relatively inexpensive and save lots of lives.
Let me give you a timely example. The Cajun Navy, bless their hearts, showed up in force in Houston to do whatever they could to supplement the hopelessly-overwhelmed local, state, and federal personnel. And now some of them are dead, because they didn’t have lifejackets (PFDs). A minimal PFD for this kind of work costs about $100, a good one is about $250, a bulk order for several thousand would no doubt drive the price down.
No, it’s not very cool and sexy and oh-gosh-look-at-the-pretend-soldiers, but it’s a basic tool that keeps people alive in situations where they’d otherwise die. A quarter-million dollars worth of PFDs is chump change in comparison with the overall expense — flying helicopters is REALLY expensive — but it would yield value far beyond its price.
That’s just one example. There are a lot of others, including swiftwater rescue training — something that almost none of the Houston city personnel have had because there’s no money for it. But SWR is essential for anyone trying to perform rescues in fast water, particularly in urban areas where there are all kinds of hazards under the surface. Two days of quality SWR instruction costs $250/student and is probably enough to keep them from dying while trying to keep other people from dying.
Harvey. Sandy. Katrina. This is the new normal. There will be another one. Soon. And money needs to be spent on basic gear and basic training before one of these turns into a multi-thousand person casualty event. So don’t buy the cops AR-15’s: buy them PFDs and SWR training. Those are FAR more likely to keep them alive.
Re: Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
Looks like you didn’t get the memo. Climate change is a Chinese conspiracy hoax and preparing against its consequences is prohibited to state and federal actors by decree.
You get the science you voted for. You thought science is not up for a vote? Think again. While it is not yet outlawed.
Re: Re: Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
Is the present administration still considering defunding NASA weather satellites?
Re: Re: Re: Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
“NOAA cuts target future polar weather satellites”, by Jeff Foust, Space News, May 8, 2017
Re: Re: Re:2 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
“Senate Appropriators Reject Trump’s Cut to Weather Satellite Budget”, Doug Messier, Parabolic Arc, Aug 7, 2017
Re: Re: Re:3 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
Quickly glancing through news just for the past week, Google’s first result is a Newsweek article by Matthew Cooper, “Hurricane Harvey Looms, and So Do Trump Cuts to Weather Research” (Aug 24, 2017). While that article seems to provide an ok overview, be aware that some of the hyperlinks within it go to news from as long ago as last March.
Re: Re: Re:4 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
They also hate things like earthquake and volcano monitoring.
Re: Re: Re:4 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
So I guess it is still up in the air – what kind of dumbass trashes the one thing that provides early warning for hurricanes? ….. Not that everyone listens but many who stayed could not afford to leave.
Yeah, we need more bombs but no more data about how we are fucking up the planet.
Re: Re: Re:5 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
If the government becomes the only source of information on any subject, how can we have meaningful discussions on things like climate change? Any deviation from the party line can be dismissed as a subjective opinion when it’s not outright sedition.
At times like this I think the Every Nation guy is right. We really should get on board with the Resist movement now and fight about our differences later.
Re: Re: Re:5 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
We could fuck up the planet by not having satellite data telling us to get out of the way of a storm?
I don’t think the planet really cares one way or another.
Re: Re: Re:5 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
Hurricanes love the attention they get. So by monitoring them and giving them publicity you actually attract them. We need to quit doing that! Smart!
Re: Re: Re:2 Weather satellite funding [was Speaking as a first responder...]
If you have 5 agencies that basically does the same thing and you cut 2 or 3 of them, that doesn’t mean you want to not reach the goals of those agencies.
Additionally, government agencies waste so much money. If they wouldn’t waste money, they could do more. The problem is they are governmental agencies, that is what they do. Cut their budget and they reduce their services, not cut their waste.
For the sandy relief bill, a canary in Alaska got $8 million. Alaska wasn’t affected. That is why the Texas politicians voted against the bill.
Our government just can’t resist wasting money, because it isn’t theirs in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:3 Disaster relief funding [wa Weather satellite funding]
The 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report “FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster
Relief” contains exactly one mention of “Alaska” (fn.22 on p.13), and zero mentions of “canary”.
Considering that in this context it’s been widely noted that there’s been some “Pinocchios” flying around — you should provide an authoritative citation for your assertion here.
Where’s your cite for the “canary in Alaska got $8 million” ?
‘Cause without a good cite, I’m gonna think you’re just spreading birdshit around.
Re: Re: Re:4 Disaster relief funding [wa Weather satellite funding]
16,000,000,000 dollars for Community Development Block Grants (11 billion higher than HUD was requesting at the time)
600,000,000 for State and Tribal Assistance Grants under the EPA
348,000,000 for “construction” for the National Park Service
100,000,000 for Head Start
50,000,000 for the Historic Preservation Fund at the NPS
45,000,000 for upgrades to NOAA aircraft
22,000,000 for upgrading NOAA weather equipment
50,000,000 for “construction” for Fish and Wildlife Services
24,000,000 for the Defense Working Capital Fund
10,000,000 to Small Business Administration to plus up grants to organizations seeking to participate in disaster relief
4,400,000 for “capital improvement” to the Forestry Service
3,000,000 for oil spill research
2,000,000 for the Smithsonian’s leaky roofs.
1,000,000 for new cars for the DEA.
1,000,000 to the Legal Services Corporation.
Re: Re: Re:5 Disaster relief funding [wa Weather satellite funding]
For citation, google “sandy relief bill Alaska fisheries” and pick one of the 7.35 million responses.
Re: Re: Re:6 Disaster relief funding [wa Weather satellite funding]
Factcheck.org stated that Ted Cruz’s statement that 2/3 of the Sandy relief bill was pork was not true. They state that only 1/3 of the bill was pork.
It was $60 billion. So only $20 billion was pork. Gee, that makes me feel better.
Unless you don’t believe those conservative Nazi’s over at the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Re: Re: Re:7 Disaster relief funding [wa Weather satellite funding]
These the same people who told you the porker about the “canary in Alaska” ?
Re: Re: Re:5 Disaster relief funding [wa Weather satellite funding]
Your long list here is not a citation for the “canary in Alaska” birdshit.
Re: Re: Re:3 Canary range [was Weather satellite funding]
Wikipedia: Atlantic Canary
Alaska, for the geographically challenged, is not in the eastern Atlantic. Rather, Alaska’s coastline extends along the Pacific Ocean, the Bering Sea, and the Arctic Ocean.
Alaska is not tropical. It is cold.
Re: Speaking as a first responder/first responder trainer...
So the federal government should go around paying for every police department to receive training? Floods happen everywhere, so I guess everyone needs it.
That is the problem, who pays for it? Why should someone in Maine see their tax dollars to go Houston because Texans decided they didn’t want to be prepared? Why is that a federal issue? Shouldn’t the people who will benefit be the one footing the bill?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, sing songs and take care of one another, but you can always volunteer your help or send our own money as a donation, but that isn’t the Feds job.
Perfect example is that Florida backs its own flood insurance program as no insurance company will provide it. Florida’s flood insurance program is woefully underfunded (if it were a real insurance company, it wouldn’t be allowed to operate, because it violates insurance regulations) and if a major storm hits the state of Florida will turn to the Federal govt. for help, because the money just isn’t there.
Should someone in Iowa see their tax dollars to go help when Florida politicians willfully underfunded something?
Re: Re: Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
You might as well be asking why someone who’s house is not on fire should be forced to pay for the fire department that’s trying to put out the fires in someone else’s house.
Like it or not I can pretty much guarantee that you benefit from a system that spreads the costs out to make it a smaller burden on the individual, and while you may not benefit from it now by paying you ensure that should that change you aren’t left in the dark scrambling to get the resources needed to get by/survive.
Be very careful with the idea that things like natural disasters and/or training for them isn’t something that the government should be handling, because while you may not see a benefit now and think that it’s unfair that you pay for the help/training someone else gets, that can easily be turned around on you, such that you find yourself in a situation where you need help and those around you are saying, "Why should I have to pay for them? Doing so doesn’t benefit me, so why should I care?"
Re: Re: Re: Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
I don’t necessarily agree with AC, but maybe a closer analogy would be whether people who live in fire-prone forests should be required to have extra fire insurance. Putting out someone’s house when it’s on fire – or helping with rescue, shelter and cleanup after a flood – is one thing. Subsidizing peoples’ decision to live in a fire or flood prone area is something else. Why should I pay people to live in Houston, Miami, and New Orleans? Shouldn’t the people living in those places bear the cost of buying insurance? If not, why not? It’s probably not that simple since some people can’t afford the insurance and don’t have good options to move, but it seems likely that we won’t be able to afford to just continue rebuilding cities as these disasters occur more and more frequently and get worse and worse.
Re: Re: Re:2 Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
Because those particular areas would benefit from federal funds being spent on training and equipment that matches the likely issues that would crop up, just like another area might have different problems of their own that would require different training and/or equipment.
The problem as I see it is that the matter is being looked at too closely(‘Why am I, in state X, paying taxes to support someone in state Y?’), when pulling back a little more changes the framing and I feel leaves it making more sense.
‘Federal taxes are spent on things that (theoretically) benefit the public at large according to their specific needs. Their state benefits more from certain funding which my taxes help pay for, whereas my state has different needs that their taxes help pay for.’
Looked at on a state level it can appear that certain people are being ‘subsidized’ for living in the ‘wrong’ area by people that live elsewhere, but if you look at it as a whole it’s simply a matter of allocating resources where they’re needed.
Re: Re: Re:3 Think of it as your entry ticket price to the theme park 'Society'
Doesn’t that assume that all states are equally at risk of needing a sudden influx of disaster aid? Even when controlled for population, I very much doubt that is true.
“All you need to do is turn on a tv right now to see that for Houstonians this isn’t about appearances, its about getting the job done and getting everyone to safety. “
Thank god the police still have a few mortar rounds left from their last military hardware distribution, because that hurricane certainly is asking for it … time to break out the military shit and exact revenge on that hurricane – you know … to send a message to all hurricanes.
Re: Re:
More like a message to looters. But it’s kind of a stupid message when the equipment would do a lot more damage to property than the looters would.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m sure that all looters respect the mortar much more that a simple little nine millimeter. I can imagine the scene … looters dashing out of the seven eleven with their ill gotten twinkles and slurpies only to be confronted by a barrage of mortar fire exploding in all direction cutting off escape via their yellow ’72 pinto. Then dropping from their attack helicopter officers in black clad armor descend upon the overwhelmed twinkie pirates slapping on the cuffs and high fives all around. Good Job Boys! Couldn’t have done it without those mighty fine mortars. Sorry about all that damage to the building and stuff – too bad soo sad.
Gallup: Confidence In Police
The article above links AG Session’s Aug 28 speech:
Gallup: “Confidence in Police Back at Historical Average” (July 10, 2017)
Further according to Gallup’s “Confidence In Institutions” survey, in 2017, for “the police”:
About 1 in 7 out of the surveyed group have “very little” confidence in the police. Another 2 out of that 7 lack stellar confidence in the police.
Four out of seven people might be characterized, in AG Session’s words, as a “vast majority”.
Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Where’s the line for “Confident that they’ll screw up majorly and regularly!”?
Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Think that’s probably the 1% in 2017 who — when asked, “a great deal, quite a lot, some or very little?” — they volunteered the response, “none”.
That column’s unchanged from 2016, but down from the 2% recorded in 2015.
Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
What should I put if I’m 60% sure that the cop in any given interaction will not intentionally harm me for no good reason? 60% is quite a lot right? It’s more than half. Lets go with quite a lot!
What I’m 100% on is if the cop does feel like hurting me, he won’t be held accountable.
Re: Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
BREAKING NEWS: “Cobb officer who said ‘we only shoot black people’ will be fired”, by Ernie Suggs and Rosalind Bentley, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Aug. 31, 2017 (“updated 3:58 p.m.”)
Earlier today from the AJC, “Cobb leaders address public over ‘we only shoot black people’ remark”, by Ben Brasch and Rosalind Bentley, Aug 31, 2017 (“updated 12:57 p.m.”)
Stepping back from the breaking news, and responding to your comment, police officers do occasionally get placed on administrative duty, and even fired.
Re: Re: Re:2 Gallup: Confidence In Police
While the SAY they’re going to fire him, more than likely what they’ll REALLY do is arrange him a job at another station or the sheriff’s department at which point he’ll “quit”. It’s nearly impossible to get an LEO fired these days.
Re: Re: Re:3 Gallup: Confidence In Police
Breaking: he’s resigned. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/georgia-police-officer-resigns-racist-joke-kill-black-people-lieutenant-greg-abbot-cobb-country-a7923806.html
However, you may be right. There’s nothing to stop him creeping back into an LEO job down the line. You know what’s funny? I keep getting into arguments with Antifa supporters over their violence and the best they can come up with is that they’re trying to prevent Hitler 2.0. What nobody seems to have noticed is that the Nazi problem isn’t the prats with the torches and the awful haircuts marching in places like Charlottesville, it’s horrible people like that Cobb County cop. They might not generally say it out loud but they’re sure as hell thinking it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Gallup: Confidence In Police
Nothing to stop him except that he already has a cushy pension and problem doesn’t need to work anymore. This guy just made a bad joke though, I would hardly call that a serious crime.
Re: Re: Re:5 Gallup: Confidence In Police
While it’s not a crime at all, it was inadvisable, to say the least. As it is, stoking racial tensions by pretty much admitting to deliberately killing black people (which is what it looks like to BLM) could lead to serious repercussions.
Since many a true word is spoken in jest my comment stands: prats marching in costume aren’t the problem, it’s prats with power making throwaway comments like this. If all lives matter, that includes our brothers and sisters of colour.
Re: Re: Re:6 Gallup: Confidence In Police
Agreed, it was a stupid thing to say, but how do we know he wasn’t being really sarcastic? Kind of like, Yeah, we shoot people for no reason all the time, but only blacks.
People say a lot of stupid things, like the U. Penn professor who wrote that other cultures are inferior to Euro cultures. Or the kid who tweeted that she hopes she doesn’t catch aids when she visits Africa.
Sometimes a joke or sarcastic comment is exactly that.
Of course, some positions are held to a higher standard and joking around or being sarcastic can and will get you fired, but I also think that people need to lighten up and develop a sense of humor, or at least learn to just ignore things sometimes.
Re: Re: Re:7 Gallup: Confidence In Police
None of that is funny, though.
I can’t “lighten up” over people being deliberately targeted and shot like vermin because they’re the wrong colour. The Aurora shooter and the church mass murderer were captured alive. Why are their lives worth taking more care over?
Re: Re: Re:5 Gallup: Confidence In Police
You’re sure it was a joke? Iow, you’re confident they really do shoot white women, too.
Re: Re: Re:2 Gallup: Confidence In Police
Being fired is hardly what I would consider being held accountable for serious crimes.
Re: Re: Re:3 Gallup: Confidence In Police
“Being fired is hardly what I would consider being held accountable for serious crimes.”
Actually not even fired. Allowed to retire, with benefits. I wish my job was like that, and it’s even more dangerous.
Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
I also heard that Trump won the popular vote… So more than half definitely qualifies as vast majority for them.
Re: Re: Gallup: Confidence In Police
Heck, the way Trump talks up his electoral victory (with less than half of the votes) as "historic" and "unprecedented," less than half probably qualifies as a vast majority for them.
Everyone knows a hurricane’s true weakness: bayonets.
what the fuck is wrong with these senior USA people? is becomming the first and worst Police State before Trump is exited so important? is it so important to force the USA to be the first and worst country in the supposed civilized world that supposedly runs on and lives for democracy, freedom and privacy, to throw all those things away? Sessions is behaving like a damn Hitlerised idiot!!
ever since Trump got the top job, his priorities seem to be to ensure that all his cronies in industry continue to keep their various enterprises going, even when people are dying because of them and to stomp on, not just the rights, the freedom and privacy of the people but on the people themselves!
Re: Re:
“senior USA people”
As in
senior politicians?
or
senior voters?
or
Senior from Mexico?
Typical say one thing while believing something else
Don’t be fooled by what Sessions says about militarizing the police. Like most politicians, he believes one thing but says something different.
What he says: militarize police because of crime after a hurricane!
What he thinks: militarize police in order to stop hurricanes from making landfall!
Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
You could argue whether military help in emergencies is good — well, no, “let ’em drown” is untenable.
Let’s stick to military equipment for police in daily use, then. … Uh, why not? The actual use is all that matters, and while I agree that the trend of violent police is alarming, THAT is a separate problem. I’d also go along with the “have it will use” line, but that’s still mostly separate problem. — Of declining morals and unity under common law.
Anyway, there’s NO need for the headline to bring in the phony R/D division in “politics”, because fact is that the Ds are not actually resisting the tyranny, either.
—
Yet I do fully expect that some here will immediately start arguing fictional distinctions between the “two parties” of The Establishment.
—
Went in “Moderation” about 10:10 Pacific… And I waited over an hour, no show. Is the “Free Speech Edition” of Techdirt off already? The notice is down. — This comes from a session which used “Resend” to get through on 2nd try.
Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
My prior attempt is NOT now showing: I searched for
“cast it”, and not found.
Re: Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
Sometimes it takes awhile. Just enjoy some classic Monty Python while you’re waiting…
‘HELP! I’m being repressed !’
Re: Re: Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
I didn’t vote for him.
Re: Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
Nice try. We know you lie about your spams.
Re: Why cast it as partisan? There's not even opposition.
The article (and title) didn’t say anything about Republican vs. Democrat. You know TD’s been posting articles voicing an opinion against militarization of police during the prior administration too. Perhaps it’s you who shouldn’t be casting things with a phony R/D division.
Why they need military gear.
Military gear is good for killing people.
Dead people don’t need disaster help.
Dont assist..
Dont help
Dont do anything except..
HOLD a gun, sit in a tank, and POINT to the nearest exit..
Define Surplus
This is the thing that always gets me. We hear reports that our troops on the lines don’t have enough quality equipment be it food, weapons and armor, vehicles, etc, so we must buy more but then we sell “surplus” to the cops. Is this truly surplus or is this just a middleman deal? The military buys the gear that is wanted to militarize the domestic ground forces and passes it on? Granted, I used to think such conspiracies were not worth the time but the more and more I see and read about our entire government and the games they play, there are days I start to wonder. Then again it may be as simple as “If we don’t spend the department budget, they will cut the budget and we can always just sell it off to the cops.”
Either way, Sessions is a dangerous person to have in this position.
Re: Define Surplus
Our troops don’t have enough [i]current[/i] equipment. “Surplus” is last year’s gear or older. You can’t get the budget you want if you have enough of what you want already so, like college textbooks, make sure everything has to be replaced annually or biannually and you can be sure your personnel are underequipped but your division is well funded. The nation’s police will buy up all the perfectly modern gear you deprecated on the taxpayers’ dime and further pad your coffers, too.
It’s a [nearly] perfect scam on the American taxpayer.
Re: Re: Define Surplus
that it is. and since the vocal citizenry will demand their right to own every type of gun ever made, then the police must always be one step above – and the coffers get bigger.
Re: Define Surplus
The military always wants the very best and newest gear. Anything less is considered “surplus” to be disposed of.
Well – obviously Sessions is correct here. The police do need some real fire power down there in Houston – they need to be able to kill all those sharks swimming around eating people. Do you want them to be eaten? Sickos!
The sharknados will continue and we will need protection. Think of others for a change rather than what music you are going to steal next.
/s … jic
The Rs want to Militarize the Police.
The Ds want to disarm the citizens.
You just gotta love being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Re: Re:
The difference is that the Rs keep following through on plans to militarize he police. The D’s don’t make any plans to disarm the citizens, let alone follow through on them.
For all the endless claims Republican made about Obama taking away everyone’s guns, he never made any such attempt. Instead he signed an order that allows the carrying of firearms in national parks, reversing an order by Ronald Reagan that guns had to be kept in locked glove compartments. He signed an order allowing guns to be carried in checked luggage on Amtrak, reversing a ban that went into effect after 9/11. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has given Obama an “F” on every issue on which it graded him.
The few vague noises and gestures he made about background checks and keeping guns away from felons and the mentally ill merely duplicated what even the head of the NRA – and Bush II, McCain and Reagan – had called for in the past.
It was the same for Clinton. Constant screaming that he was going to take everyone’s guns away Any Second Now. The closest that came to reality was the assault weapons ban, but even former Republican presidents Ford and Reagan called for it. Future President Trump too. And those who already had them could keep them.
It makes no difference who the next Democratic candidate is or what their policies are. Republicans will keep conning gullible inbreds with the same claims.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah I thought Clinton already took everyone’s guns and put us all in FEMA camps.
I don’t know, but licenses and background checks, one would think, might keep guns out of the wrong people’s hands – you know, the one’s we supposedly need guns to defend ourselves against. The ones who largely get guns from shady sellers* and stealing them from houses where they are unsecured.
*This was one of the things that the abused (and purposely implemented awfully by the private sector) Chokepoint was for, also, besides things like banks processing payments from outfits who illegally charged people’s CCs and such.
Too bad Dems suck at their own (putative) thing as much as they suck at what their antagonists make up about them.
Re: Re: Re:
I guarantee that the higher-ups in the NRA hate how Clinton lost. The usual “gubmint gon’ take yer guns” rhetoric that drives up gun sales never works under a Republican president.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think the higher-ups in the NRA are at a loss for ideas on how to use fear-mongering to drive up sales.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No they’re not: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/watch-the-nra-ad-thats-so-outrageous-womens-march-is-demanding-an-apology_us_595509b3e4b05c37bb7c8061
Re: Re:
Yup, I saw Obama driving around collecting all our guns, just like some internet troll said he would. He also set up FEMA camps to keep all those awaiting their death panel rulings.
Obama also sent that hurricane into Texas, we all know that Obama controls the weather – I read it on the internet so it must be true.
Equipment needs training
Sessions wants to flood the police depts with these vehicles, weapons and equipment but has anyone thought to get the people that will use it the proper training? Are they just going with OJT and hot laps in the parking lot? Are the commanders getting training on when not to deploy MRAPS and grenade launchers?
With military grade equipment, police would have been able to shoot down the hurricane!
Hurricane tactics
If only the police had grenade launchers, tanks, and tactical nukes, they could have confronted Harvey and…wait…
Re: Hurricane tactics
Don’t laugh too hard: nuking hurricanes was once presented as a serious proposal.
And the NOAA feels the need to have a page explaining why it’s a bad idea.
Long story short, I expect the U.S. to start nuking hurricanes for next year’s hurricane season.
Re: Re: Hurricane tactics
But think about it. Would the police think it is a bad idea?
wow...what the hell???
The national news and politicians love to blow it up and go overboard on what’s going on in Houston and south Texas. Granted, it’s devastated and sadly won’t be same for a long time if ever. BUT, the national news is bullshit. The local stations here in Texas are doing a good job of actually covering the rescues and people helping people. It’s not black vs white or R vs D. The cops don’t need more military equipment because of the hurricane. They don’t need it…period.
Just another example of how the idiots in Washington have no %&*S(‘ing clue as to what is truly going on “on the ground” where people are helping people and Texas is showing what it means to be a good neighbor. And people from all over, even Kentucky, not just the Cajun Navy from LA have come to help. Saw a picture of an NYPD vehicle in one of the towns south of Houston yesterday. The country is doing it right to help. Sessions needs to shut up and GTFO.
Just another example of how the idiots in Washington have no %&*S(‘ing clue as to what is truly going on “on the ground” where people are helping people and Texas is showing what it means to be a good neighbor.
They know, they just don’t care.
Washington has become warped, perverted, unworkable.
Washington is what happens when a system is totally corrupted — nothing but lies and fraud remain. Many (most?) state governments are complicit in this perversion of our country.
It’s way past time to take a broom to this filth — starting with Sessions and Trump ….. ending with Bush 2, Obama and the Clintons.
Re: Washington has become warped, perverted, unworkable.
You know none of them are in office, right?