Do your local police need armoured fighting vehicles?

[Roobs321]

I just read the BearCat thing. I'm all for certain regions having these at their disposal if need be. Obviously it would be rarely needed, but in some situations it could be highly valuable.

As previously said, to see this as a strengthening of a police state is a bit ridiculous.

Sure, there are some contexts it could potentially be misused in (i.e. the anti-communist crack downs in the 30s). But if the needs of use are clearly set out (as they would be), no issue with that capability.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

I just read the BearCat thing. I'm all for certain regions having these at their disposal if need be. Obviously it would be rarely needed, but in some situations it could be highly valuable.

Sure, there are some contexts it could potentially be misused in (i.e. the anti-communist crack downs in the 30s). But if the needs of use are clearly set out (as they would be), no issue with that capability.

How many would be the limit, in your opinion?

As in, is there any number (ballpark figures) of these vehicles that the police would have to be given before you would consider it problematic?

This is the question I often ask people: if you don't see a problem now, when would you see a problem? Or is it the case that so long as the politicians and MSM tell you that everything is for your own benefit, nothing to see here, you will go along with it?

Serious question.

 

[Roobs321]

There goes that brainwashed by MSM and politician condescension again, eww.

It's a mindless thing to assume you know more about certain issues than other random posters on such a large forum as this. It's very careless, you never know who you could be talking to.

 

[Borry]

What won't happen here?

Residents all having a gun or two at home so that most police need to militarise themselves.

 

[Roobs321]

Answered questions are not welcome in your threads SB.

 

[AtomicBlonde]

Too late.

Just your friendly Queensland Police. As their motto says, 'Firmness with courtesy'.

Just trying to think what the reaction on the street would have been had these been dispatched during the Cronulla riots...?

 

[Gough]

See, look at this nonsense. Why are you even in this thread? You are clearly not here to deal in facts or reality.


One, I have already posted links which reveal that there are more guns in Australia now than there were immediately before Port Arthur and Howard's gun buyback scheme.

Two, disarming the population (whether successful or not) is an entirely different matter to whether or not the police are being militarised.

But it still shows a distinct difference in cultural approaches toward guns. We don't have anything bonkers like the Second Amendment and most of the population supports strong regulation of firearms, a distinctly different path to that followed by the Americans. I agree that Australia does ape a lot of America's culture, but it's gun culture is distinctly foreign to us.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Roobs321 Are you going to answer the question?

Residents all having a gun or two at home so that most police need to militarise themselves.

How many police do you think died by firearm in the US last year?

Hint: Less than the number who died in traffic-related incidents.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-citizens-killed-cops-remains-unchanged.shtml

Their police aren't being militarised to keep them safe in the regular line of duty. And neither are ours.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

I agree that Australia does ape a lot of America's culture, but it's gun culture is distinctly foreign to us.

Yep, no question. They were founded on the principle of an armed populace being the best defense against tyranny.

However, this does not mean that we don't follow their trends in a broader sense, which we clearly do.

Be it media ownership concentration, invading foreign lands, the dumbing down of our children, presidentialisation of politics, or militarisation of the police, we tend to follow their lead on these kinds of things.

 

[checkraiseulite]

what are you scared of our police for? (srs)

fair enough they do some dodgy s**t, but are you really worried we're going to become a police state?

 

[Gough]

Yep, no question. They were founded on the principle of an armed populace being the best defense against tyranny.

However, this does not mean that we don't follow their trends in a broader sense, which we clearly do.

Be it media ownership concentration, invading foreign lands, the dumbing down of our children, presidentialisation of politics, or militarisation of the police, we tend to follow their lead on these kinds of things.

I'd argue that the militarisation of their coppers is a result of their gun culture, it's reactionary. We don't have such a culture here.

 

[checkraiseulite]

I'd argue that the militarisation of their coppers is a result of their gun culture, it's reactionary. We don't have such a culture here.

in my view the US has a much more adversarial culture in general and this comes through in a lot of different ways.

being seen to be tough on "law and order" is taken to a whole different level over there given how their media/judicial/government/religious/economic systems work.

of course, whether approaching law and order in such an adversarial way is a good or bad thing, and how effective it is, opens a whole new can'o'worms.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

what are you scared of our police for? (srs)

fair enough they do some dodgy s**t, but are you really worried we're going to become a police state?

I'll happily answer your questions, I hope you have the courage to answer mine.

I personally am not 'scared' of the police, either the institution or its individual members. My experience with the individuals has generally been positive; I believe that most in the force today are there for the right reasons. I have grievances with the institution but only insofar as it carries out what I personally feel are corrupt policies (i.e. those set out by government).

My aversion to the militarisation of the police stems from two aspects of my worldview which tend to separate me from many of my contemporaries in this country.

1) I am familiar with contemporary world history. I know what happens when governments grow too big and their police too powerful. This is knowledge that anybody can avail themselves of if they care to do some reading.

2) I do not think that Australians or Australia are inherently better than peoples/society than those which have come before us - I do not think we are invulnerable to the disasters which other peoples have met when they have allowed their governments and its police to grow too powerful.

No person can dispute the fact that governments can and do use their police (and intel agencies) against their own people, and this has had calamitous consequences for many a country in the past. It is a simple matter of historical fact. One can choose to remain ignorant of history but one cannot dispute it. It happened.

However, people might choose to disagree with me about Australia not being inherently invulnerable to the ills of big government/powerful police. 'It won't happen here', 'Our government is not corrupt and not corruptible' etc. If people choose to believe that then that is up to them.

I simply ask them this: at what point might you change your mind? How many APCs would the police need to own? How powerful would their standard issue guns have to be? How easy would it have to be for them to get search warrants to come into your house? At what point would you become concerned at the power the police have in this country?

If they can't answer these questions, then it is clear to both myself and to them that they haven't actually thought the matter through, and are arguing out of ignorance rather than reason.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Would have thought any half decent police force would have a bit of anti riot gear.

 

[checkraiseulite]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

slippery slope arguments are hardly tools of reason. it is simply another appeal to fear.

i understand where you're coming from, but i think your world view is somewhat distorted. yes, the msm don't project an objective world view, and inevitably there will be levels of corruption in any government, but by the same token the sources from which you seem to be gathering most of your recent material are equally, if not more biased. they just happen to position themselves at the opposite end of the spectrum.

at present, our police force is, in my view, pretty well constrained by the executive and the judiciary. there are areas, for example the recent anti-association laws, which may be seen as encroaching on individuals civil liberties etc but they are relatively isolated and seem to have widespread support in the community and are, or at least seem to be, well-intentioned.

to answer your question, i would change my mind about the powers of the police when i believe them to be operating without constraint and against the best interests of the general community. at present, i think we have a pretty good system. if the police were seen as too powerful, or their presence elevated to a level whereby ordinary members of the community were to feel intimidated rather than protected, i would become worried and favour legislation to alter/reduce their powers.

my primary argument against militarisation of police is that it is unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer money to spend $500k per unit on things that i think will be rarely, if ever, used.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Read the first sentence of that wiki page. Then go back and read my posts in this thread. Once again you have accused me of a logical fallacy that simply does not exist within my arguments. I know you think they teach you logic in law school but your efforts in this thread lead me to question that belief.

I have stated - and verified with plenty of evidence - that the current trend in this country is towards militarisation of police. This is no more 'slippery slope' than pointing out that national debt is rising is 'slippery slope'. A trend is a trend.

For your benefit and for the benefit of others, 'slippery slope' arguments are those which posit that event X will necessarily lead to event Y. As in, 'if we allow gay marriage, next it will be animal marriage, so we can't allow gay marriage'. This is a slippery slope argument because it erroneously posits that Y must follow from X, even though there is no historical precedent for it.

Quite differently, I am suggesting that the militarisation of our police has been ongoing for some years (i.e. a discernible trend) and that this trend mimics (albeit with lag) what we have seen in the US. There is nothing 'slippery slope' about it, and only those who have never actually studied logic could think otherwise.

the sources from which you seem to be gathering most of your recent material

Which sources? So far in this thread I have linked to ABC, News, .gov and Fairfax websites. Which of these do you dispute the authenticity of?

there are areas, for example the recent anti-association laws, which may be seen as encroaching on individuals civil liberties etc but they are relatively isolated and seem to have widespread support in the community and are, or at least seem to be, well-intentioned.

Yeah, Queensland sure is 'relatively isolated'. Good pickup.

And are you, a law grad, seriously sitting there and defending anti-freedom of association laws?

i would change my mind about the powers of the police when i believe them to be operating without constraint and against the best interests of the general community. at present, i think we have a pretty good system. if the police were seen as too powerful, or their presence elevated to a level whereby ordinary members of the community were to feel intimidated rather than protected, i would become worried and favour legislation to alter/reduce their powers.

So how many armoured vehicles would that be? What kinds of standard issue weaponry/body armour? What kind of private property entry laws?

 

[The Speaker]

Can we have fairdinkum back?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Perhaps this "militarisation" is happening roughly in line with technology development. Perhaps.

 

[The Dice Man]

My local police need a good good talking too. By that I mean taken out the back and treated like a nazi survivor in the hands of a thousand Jews who lost their families.

Extreme? Perhaps, but this country is nothing but a taxing police state now.


Baby bonus, wow what a great idea. I mean if you couldn't tell your government saw you and your kids as nothing but cattle that will reap a dividend in the future, the please, have 6 more kids and encourage.

The word Australia used to evoke freedom, mateship and a fair go...

Now it's all about what's in it for me, and how can I heck of the next campaigner...


I hate the country I used to love.

 

[checkraiseulite]

alright you have sucked me in.

Read the first sentence of that wiki page. Then go back and read my posts in this thread. Once again you have accused me of a logical fallacy that simply does not exist within my arguments. I know you think they teach you logic in law school but your efforts in this thread lead me to question that belief.

they don't teach u s**t in law school, at least in the one i went to. i've said that many times on this forum. you have used a variation of slippery slope argument.

I have stated - and verified with plenty of evidence - that the current trend in this country is towards militarisation of police. This is no more 'slippery slope' than pointing out that national debt is rising is 'slippery slope'. A trend is a trend.

For your benefit and for the benefit of others, 'slippery slope' arguments are those which posit that event X will necessarily lead to event Y. As in, 'if we allow gay marriage, next it will be animal marriage, so we can't allow gay marriage'. This is a slippery slope argument because it erroneously posits that Y must follow from X, even though there is no historical precedent for it.

Quite differently, I am suggesting that the militarisation of our police has been ongoing for some years (i.e. a discernible trend) and that this trend mimics (albeit with lag) what we have seen in the US. There is nothing 'slippery slope' about it, and only those who have never actually studied logic could think otherwise.

I simply ask them this: at what point might you change your mind? How many APCs would the police need to own? How powerful would their standard issue guns have to be? How easy would it have to be for them to get search warrants to come into your house? At what point would you become concerned at the power the police have in this country?

This is what i was referring to when I suggested you were using slippery slope. The implication is clear.

Which sources? So far in this thread I have linked to ABC, News, .gov and Fairfax websites. Which of these do you dispute the authenticity of?

I'm sure you're a smart guy, but I'm also sure you're not coming up with all the ideas for your recent threads yourself. I can easily read a controversial article that cites mainstream sources, and then cite those same sources to make the same arguments.

Yeah, Queensland sure is 'relatively isolated'. Good pickup.

I meant isolated in the sense that is designed to target a discernible section of the community, being bikies.

And are you, a law grad, seriously sitting there and defending anti-freedom of association laws?

I think there is a problem in broader australian society with bikies. Whether these laws represent a good solution, only time will tell (i also must admit i'm not terribly familiar with them).

So how many armoured vehicles would that be? What kinds of standard issue weaponry/body armour? What kind of private property entry laws?

Again we go back to your variation of the slippery slope argument. It's very easy to ask such questions to elicit a favourable response.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

See, look at this nonsense. Why are you even in this thread? You are clearly not here to deal in facts or reality.

That's good coming from you, Mr Factsandreality!

So are you suggesting that recent advances in Occupational Health and safety practices has not resulted in changes in the equipment people in all fields of work are given in order to do their work with a minimum of personal risk?

Or are you suggesting that inherently dangerous fields such as police, military etc don't have a history of expecting their employees to place themselves in great personal hazard with an expectation that it's "part of the job" or "what you signed up for"?

Because in both cases, you are wrong.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

checkraiseulite

So you are going to dodge my question. No surprises there.

And you can't actually cite a single piece of evidence I've given with which you take issue. No surprises there either.

I don't have too much problem with regular Joes standing by and watching their liberties being usurped from under their noses. What difference do they know? They think television is real, that our rights just magically came from nowhere and ought to be traded away just as easily; they have had no exposure to history which tells us that this s**t has happened before and it doesn't end well. They just want to go to work, come home and have a few beers, watch some telly, hope their kids go alright at school, and generally be left alone. They are completely oblivious to what is going on around them.

People like you, though, ought to know better. You and a number of people on this forum were blessed with the chance to further your studies beyond high school and learn the basics of how our society came to be what it is, how people won rights from their rulers by taking up arms centuries ago, how nefarious forces are only just one generation away from concentrating power into their own hands and condemning the rest of us to a woeful fate.

If people like you don't stand up and question our governments attempts to destroy the rights that men before us gave their lives for, then who will?

You've been equipped with the ability to stand up for the common man and instead you spend your time defending governments which are taking away FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION and attacking those who do question these governments. All so you can remain safely part of the herd, so you don't feel all alone. It is the conduct of a quisling and I think you could be much better.

 

[Roobs321]

I'll happily answer your questions, I hope you have the courage to answer mine.

I personally am not 'scared' of the police, either the institution or its individual members. My experience with the individuals has generally been positive; I believe that most in the force today are there for the right reasons. I have grievances with the institution but only insofar as it carries out what I personally feel are corrupt policies (i.e. those set out by government).

My aversion to the militarisation of the police stems from two aspects of my worldview which tend to separate me from many of my contemporaries in this country.

1) I am familiar with contemporary world history. I know what happens when governments grow too big and their police too powerful. This is knowledge that anybody can avail themselves of if they care to do some reading.

2) I do not think that Australians or Australia are inherently better than peoples/society than those which have come before us - I do not think we are invulnerable to the disasters which other peoples have met when they have allowed their governments and its police to grow too powerful.

No person can dispute the fact that governments can and do use their police (and intel agencies) against their own people, and this has had calamitous consequences for many a country in the past. It is a simple matter of historical fact. One can choose to remain ignorant of history but one cannot dispute it. It happened.

However, people might choose to disagree with me about Australia not being inherently invulnerable to the ills of big government/powerful police. 'It won't happen here', 'Our government is not corrupt and not corruptible' etc. If people choose to believe that then that is up to them.

I simply ask them this: at what point might you change your mind? How many APCs would the police need to own? How powerful would their standard issue guns have to be? How easy would it have to be for them to get search warrants to come into your house? At what point would you become concerned at the power the police have in this country?

If they can't answer these questions, then it is clear to both myself and to them that they haven't actually thought the matter through, and are arguing out of ignorance rather than reason.

One day you will learn that such overt condescension is an alarm bell for other posters here...one day

 

[AM]

It won't happen here.

Thank goodness it would be a State matter cos I wouldn't put anything past the Mad Monk.

 

[checkraiseulite]

checkraiseulite

So you are going to dodge my question. No surprises there.

And you can't actually cite a single piece of evidence I've given with which you take issue. No surprises there either.

I don't have too much problem with regular Joes standing by and watching their liberties being usurped from under their noses. What difference do they know? They think television is real, that our rights just magically came from nowhere and ought to be traded away just as easily; they have had no exposure to history which tells us that this s**t has happened before and it doesn't end well. They just want to go to work, come home and have a few beers, watch some telly, hope their kids go alright at school, and generally be left alone. They are completely oblivious to what is going on around them.

People like you, though, ought to know better. You and a number of people on this forum were blessed with the chance to further your studies beyond high school and learn the basics of how our society came to be what it is, how people won rights from their rulers by taking up arms centuries ago, how nefarious forces are only just one generation away from concentrating power into their own hands and condemning the rest of us to a woeful fate.

If people like you don't stand up and question our governments attempts to destroy the rights that men before us gave their lives for, then who will?

You've been equipped with the ability to stand up for the common man and instead you spend your time defending governments which are taking away FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION and attacking those who do question these governments. All so you can remain safely part of the herd, so you don't feel all alone. It is the conduct of a quisling and I think you could be much better.

emotive hyperbole.

i don't question the individual pieces of "evidence" you have given, i question the conclusions you draw from them viewed as a whole.

i'm as cynical as the next man, but i think you're going too far in your mistrust of the government.