Monday, August 18, 2014

Yeah, semi-auto firearms that were/are what troops used


Except when they're not.  Sugarmann is a lying bastard, isn't he?

And while a city in Missouri is trying to burn down, this crap is happening and never makes anything more than local news.

They need military gear why, again?  They can't commit enough murders with their standard weapons?

Since I'm on the subject of assholes with badges, I give you the Antioch Californicated PD:
Police in Northern California beat and tased a mentally ill man before siccing a dog on him, then turning on citizens who recorded the incident, confiscating cell phones and in one case, ordering a witness to delete his footage.

But one video survived anyway, slightly longer than two minutes, where a cop from the Antioch Police Department can be heard saying he wants cameras confiscated right before the video stops.
 Can have evidence of what they did just out there in public, now can they?  And this:
Antioch police told ABC7 News in a statement, “If a person is not willing to turn it over voluntarily, an officer can sometimes seize the device containing the video. The police would have to get a search warrant to retrieve the video from the device.”
As Carlos Miller points out, this is completely wrong and has been wrong for a few years now. Guidelines from the Department of Justice passed down in 2012 state the exact opposite. Police can ask for compliance, but they need to be extremely careful in how they ask. They don't care about the law, because it's a problem for them.   Bastards.

More on the subject from Mark Steyn:
The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That's simply not credible. "Law" "enforcement" in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns ...but not a dashcam. That's ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It's about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is.
... In 2014, when a police cruiser doesn't have a camera, it's a conscious choice. And it should be regarded as such.

And, if we have to have federal subsidy programs for municipal police departments, we should scrap the one that gives them the second-hand military hardware from Tikrit and Kandahar and replace it with one that ensures every patrol car has a camera.
And this:
Really? You're a constable. You may be carrying on like the military commander of an occupying army faced with a rabble of revolting natives, but in the end you're a constable. And the fact that you and your colleagues in that McDonald's are comfortable speaking to your fellow citizens like this is part of the problem. The most important of the "nine principles of good policing" (formulated by the first two commissioners of the Metropolitan Police in 1829 and thereafter issued to every officer joining the force) is a very simple one: The police are the public and the public are the police. Not in Ferguson. Long before the teargassing begins and the bullets start flying, the way these guys talk is the first indication of how the remorseless militarization has corroded the soul of American policing.

Which brings me to this I ran across over at Sipsey.  I'd never heard it before; strikes a chord, it does


skidmark said...

I keep reading comments about the Ferguson MO cop's car not having a dashcam installed. What good having one installed and running is beyond my ken - it looks straight forward through the windshield, while all of the action supposedly happened in/around the driver's seat. Gun folks berate non-gun folks for not knowing the basics of guns and gunning but moan about the lack of a dashcam? Where did I put my duct tape?

stay safe.

Firehand said...

My understanding is that all of them record audio as well, and with a lot of the systems the officer has a mike on his shirt connected to it. So even if you didn't have video, you'd hear something of what's going on. Not perfect, but it would help a lot.

Keith said...

The deeper I read into it, the more Peel's principles begin to look like a velvet glove to disguise the mailed fist that he was introducing.

Peel's inspiration for the Met, introduced in 1829, was the paramilitary Irish Constabulary, which he'd headed. Its purpose - to keep the rebellious Irish hammered down.

Popular opinion in Britain was strongly against state cops, and the introduction of what was effectively the gendarme (armed men) who had enforced the reigns of terror in revolutionary France.

Amongst minarchists, there is no agreement of what a minimal state should do, nor how many people it should take to do it nor what it should cost.

accepting that lack of aggreement, I'll put forward a quite common idea of the minimum state: defense, and dispute resolution - in otherwords, a military, cops and courts.

I'm encountering more and more soldiers who are deciding that they are serving no useful purpose, thinking it through and coming out as anarchist, some even seeking discharge as conscientious objectors, others just weighting until their time is up.

There seems to be a deficit of anarchist former cops.

Interestingly, the residents and protestors in Ferguson, seem to be doing a very good job of protecting persons and property that the shiny badged donut abusers are refusing to defend. In that process they're showing that it can be done without a state monopoly.

If only we could get the information to them - they're making anarchy work and they don't even realize yet that they're anarchists;

Just think how much it would piss all of the politicians off if we could get the info down there, and the locals gave the finger to Holder, Sharpton, Jackson, Obama and all the rest of the politicians.