I ask for your most intelligent discretion in regards to this topic...

[French G.]

Someone brought up Civil War earlier.  Which side will the military be on?

Both. There are plenty of little jackboot wannabes in there that can't even spell Constitution and would do whatever they were told. Then there are many varying shades of true American people in the service that would tell the man to GFY in various ways from sabotage and desertion right up to delivering intact units to the "wrong" side. It'd be ugly.

[Fly320s]

It'd be ugly.

As opposed to the last Civil War, which was a nice, polite war.  /snark

Sorry, French, not attacking you, that just struck me odd.

<---Former MP

True, but if you going to do a "dynamic entry" then you better have made damn sure you got it right.    And I saw a firefighter tell a cop "If you come to take away my 2A rights and firearms, you'll get .308 rounds through your windshield as you pull in my driveway."

LEO's have to remember that the US Constitution comes first.  I don't give one good G_d Damn what your bosses ordered you to do.  The "I vass only followink Or-ders." defense died at Nuremburg.  You have to interpret those orders and determine whether they were lawful or not.

I agree 100%

[209]

Well now... I'm a cop, so I vote, "Never!" 

My PD doesn't do "dynamic entries" on a regular basis and "no-knocks" and that crap.  And if we do a search warrant app and I'm involved with it, it has the correct address, usually complete with pics of said address, so anyone serving the warrant, if it is approved to begin with, would have to be a blind-dead a$$hole (BDA) to hit the wrong address.  And since we are a small agency, that BDA would be me because if I was the author of the warrant app and if I write the app, I serve the warrant or at least am there when it's served.

[roo_ster]

Well now... I'm a cop, so I vote, "Never!" 

My PD doesn't do "dynamic entries" on a regular basis and "no-knocks" and that crap.  And if we do a search warrant app and I'm involved with it, it has the correct address, usually complete with pics of said address, so anyone serving the warrant, if it is approved to begin with, would have to be a blind-dead a$$hole (BDA) to hit the wrong address.  And since we are a small agency, that BDA would be me because if I was the author of the warrant app and if I write the app, I serve the warrant or at least am there when it's served.

Heh.

I gotta remember "BDA" in this context.

Two things that always struck me as odd with some of the more notorious raids are:
1. Poor prep work for so many of the bad warrant services/raids that go bad.  Hello?  Have how many folks on salary working this using how many thousands of dollars' worth of hardware and we can't snap a photo of the place and double check Google Maps?  Maybe get some guy to get 360deg photos before we roll the heavies?
2. Goofing off in front of the objective.  WTF, over?  If these were truly dangerous men necessitating SWATties over beat cops, why are the SWATties loitering about in full view of the windows, Gawd, and the neighborhood?  I'll start thinking of these folks are Truly Dangerous when the cops start acting like they are.

[P5 Guy]

Surround, shut off the electric, water, and gas. Wait them out. If no one's life is in danger then do not endanger the police. Is destroyed evidence of equal value to life?
No police will be shot at by accident. The only guys breaking down doors will be thugs.
My opinion, most likely wrong, but it is mine.

[zxcvbob]

Surround, shut off the electric, water, and gas. Wait them out. If no one's life is in danger then do not endanger the police. Is destroyed evidence of equal value to life?  No police will be shot at by accident. The only guys breaking down doors will be thugs.  My opinion, most likely wrong, but it is mine.

You mistakenly believe the police chief and other brass actually care about "no police will be shot at by accident".  They care more about the overtime pay.  Think like a politician for a minute.

Officers being shot is [to them] a perversely good thing because they can use it to grandstand for more money & power.

[drewtam]

A civil war that is winnable, is unnecessary.

The South fought against 10:1 odds (population). They came very close to achieving succession. Probably if the population ratios were closer to 5:1, they would have won independence.

Any movement in the US with 20% support is big enough to affect elections and change politics without violence.

[just Warren]

Once blood starts being spilled it is hard to go back to a peaceful society. So all care must be taken so that violence does not become a regular means of social change.

That said the overkill of police tactics in this country has already created a large number of folks with a direct reason to take vengeance and those people also have numerous sympathizers and all it may take is just one person acting on their anger and then it all hits the fan as a tipping point is reached.

This would be disastrous for the country. There is no win in this so instead of coming up with a rationale to when it is okay to shoot X folks go in the direction of moderating the problem peacefully. That is if the police are a problem it is because they are either unaccountable or they have too much power. So the idea would be to reduce either or both of those situations. I know what I would suggest and it would never involve shooting some one for anything other than immediate self-defense.

[longeyes]

Don't assume that society is "at peace" now, that there is no blood being spilled, that there is no violence at work, or that violence is not already a regular means of social change.  Government today largely depends on coercion or inertia or fear.  A demoralized people is an abused people--why do you think so many are on anti-depressants?

The shadow civil war in America started long, long ago, on many fronts.  And if the Left hasn't won it's damn close.

[MicroBalrog]

The shadow civil war in America started long, long ago, on many fronts.  And if the Left hasn't won it's damn close.

Compare the America of today to the America of the 1960's.

What will you see?

1. 40 years ago, Federal tax revenues comprised 17.6% of GDP. In 2011, they comprise merely 14.4% of GDP. Brookings Institution Research. In other words Federal taxes are lower.

2. 40 years ago, it would be illegal to carry concealed weapons through most of the Union, or this right would be suspect to government discretion.

3. 40 years ago, vast economic regulations existed under the guise of the Interstate Commerce Commission benefitting the largest trucking companies and unions. Price controls were possible (and indeed were later introduced). Many of these regulations are now abolished.

4. The inheritance tax is gone now.

It's true that there are many problems to this day and I agree we need to fix them, but no, it's not a unilateral process of decline.

[makattak]

Compare the America of today to the America of the 1960's.

What will you see?

1. 40 years ago, Federal tax revenues comprised 17.6% of GDP. In 2011, they comprise merely 14.4% of GDP. Brookings Institution Research. In other words Federal taxes are lower.

That's skewed by the recession and the massive reliance on the upper income brackets who took the largest hit from the recession. Look at the chart in 2007 and 2008: 18.5 and 17.5. Our taxes are much the same. (And our average from 2000-2008 is above that 17.6%)

[makattak]

2. 40 years ago, it would be illegal to carry concealed weapons through most of the Union, or this right would be suspect to government discretion.

True, we've made progress.

[makattak]

3. 40 years ago, vast economic regulations existed under the guise of the Interstate Commerce Commission benefitting the largest trucking companies and unions. Price controls were possible (and indeed were later introduced). Many of these regulations are now abolished.

You aren't seriously arguing we have fewer regulations now than 40 years ago? In certain areas it may be better, but how long does it take to open a business now vs. 1960? How long does it take to break ground on new construction now vs. 1960? How many SWAT-style raids on businesses for breaking the laws of other countries happened in 1960? How many raw milk farms were raided by SWAT teams?

[makattak]

4. The inheritance tax is gone for now.

FTFY

[MicroBalrog]

You aren't seriously arguing we have fewer regulations now than 40 years ago? In certain areas it may be better, but how long does it take to open a business now vs. 1960? How long does it take to break ground on new construction now vs. 1960? How many SWAT-style raids on businesses for breaking the laws of other countries happened in 1960? How many raw milk farms were raided by SWAT teams?

I think you will find that there are certain areas of business where overregulation will affect other businesses far worse - like the trucking and air transport industry. I will argue that their deregulation is a far bigger deal than normally allowed for.

4. The inheritance tax is gone for now.

You can say this about any law - nothing is binding on a future Congress, technically speaking Pelosi could become Speaker in 2012 and raise taxes to 100% of revenue.

[Strings]

For a quick glimpse of what a civil war in this country anytime in the near future would look like, catch the end of Reservoir Dogs. That would be a good microcosm of the next American Civil War

[209]

Heh.

I gotta remember "BDA" in this context.

You can use that anytime.  I stole it from very upset Police Lt.  He was ranting to an officer who had done something wrong.  In the past, BDA meant Brain Dead A------.  During his meltdown, he said blind dead a------.  We laughed and, silly me, said, "Don't you mean...."  Of course then he got mad at me, but a new phrase was born.  He still gets mad when we say it in front of him.  Of course, he hears it a lot because of that. 

[HankB]

Quote from: MicroBalrog on Today at 12:45:06 PM
2. 40 years ago, it would be illegal to carry concealed weapons through most of the Union, or this right would be suspect to government discretion.

True, we've made progress.

And 44 years ago, one could obtain that concealed weapon (and a whole lot more) via mail-order, or over the counter with no 4473. No more.

And 26 years ago, one could - if so inclined - pay a $200 tax, fill out some papers, and legally purchase a NEW machine gun. No more.

And about 18 years ago, one could purchase a USAS-12, Striker 12, or Streetsweeper shotgun with no special paperwork. No more.

So although progress HAS been made in some areas (and "shall issue" concealed carry is an excellent example) in others, we've lost ground.

[AJ Dual]

For a quick glimpse of what a civil war in this country anytime in the near future would look like, catch the end of Reservoir Dogs. That would be a good microcosm of the next American Civil War

Yes, it would be a seven-sided hot mess.

Leftist constituencies like blue collar unions and minorities have no love for other aspects of the Left, like gay rights/gay marriage.

Despite the economic compatibility between Libertarians, and the Religious/Social Right, there's no love lost over things like drug policy or prostitution.

I think what the next American Civil War needs is a "bracket system" like the NCAA March Madness. Or maybe something like run-off elections they have in other countries.

The Left squares off against the Right, then the Authoritarians against the Libertarians, and winner takes all? Keynesians vs. the Austrians? Do we form leagues, then have a championship Civil War? 

[longeyes]

We had a Civil War already, folks, and the Great Society was the Reconstruction.  LBJ and the Progressives won.   That they have permitted the rest of us to go about our lives in comparatively innocuous ways is a grace period we should not take too much comfort in.

[Nick1911]

A DUI checkpoint is not a cause for shooting a police officer.

Off on another tangent, but I fail to understand what it's not legal to set up checkpoints for any other types of searches without any probable cause, but DUI checkpoints are just *expletive deleted*ing great. 

Go go action MADD.

[wmenorr67]

Off on another tangent, but I fail to understand what it's not legal to set up checkpoints for any other types of searches without any probable cause, but DUI checkpoints are just *expletive deleted*ing great. 

Go go action MADD.

But isn't that just what the TSA is trying to do?

[brimic]

2. If police are suppressing 1st amendment rights that have no bearing on projection of force by those expressing 1A rights...protection of 1A rights by any means is acceptable.

Big gray area there.
If the government becomes oppressive overall and encourages putting down insurgents/opposition, fire away.
If there is still some sort of overall semblence of civility in the country, use the courts.
Shooting a bully who should have been weeded out by psych exams makes a martyr out of him and encourages more heavy handed jack-booted behavior. Sueing his ass off for civil rights violations hits him, his union, and his city government in a way that will get noticed.


On point #1, I absolutely agree. No-knock warrant = hot burglary at best and death squad at worst.

[French G.]

I was thinking on this today while plowing my garden. It's a basic equation. At some level all laws are enforced at gunpoint and all citizens are subject to being shot by the police, it's just a matter of personal thresholds in the case of both parties. Armed with this knowledge I keep my hands on the steering wheel when I'm getting a speeding ticket. Cops, to varying levels. are forced into thinking like submariners, two kinds of ships, submarines and targets.

All equations demand balance so therefore anyone who sets out to enforce law by force is subject to that same force once folks have had enough. So, I think it would be in the interest of police administrators to keep the heavy handed idiots safely away from the public, but the police unions don't see it that way.