quote: Among the most specific changes detailed by Mr. Bratton on Thursday, however, was the creation of a heavily armed unit to patrol areas of the city and respond to large-scale events, such as protests or terrorist attacks. Those duties are now often performed by officers drawn from precincts across the city who are temporarily assigned to terrorist targets, such as Times Square.
The new unit, to be made up of roughly 350 officers and to be called the Strategic Response Group, will be created in the coming months, Mr. Bratton said. Officers assigned to it would be equipped with heavy protective gear and machine guns, and receive advanced training in counterterrorism tactics and “advanced disorder control,” he said.
“It is designed for dealing with events like our recent protests or incidents like Mumbai or what just happened in Paris,” Mr. Bratton said, referring to the terrorist attacks in India in 2008 and in France this month, both carried out by small groups of men wielding assault rifles.
You bring support weaponry like machine guns to a protest, they are going to be used.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If income inequality keeps going the way it is going, the 1% is going to need those militarized police.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever. A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
I realize, this being the media, they might be conflating "machine gun" with "automatic rifle", but the point still stands.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
THE INNOCENT HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. THE TODDLER IN THAT CRIB WAS SUBJECT TO PROCEDURAL AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN THE DRUG RAID GIVEN ESTABLISHED POTENTIAL THREAT TO OFFICERS. WE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR MEDICAL COSTS INCURRED DUE TO SEVERE SCARRING OF THE CHILD'S FLESH AND INTERNAL ORGANS DUE TO PROXIMAL DETONATION OF A FLASHBANG DEVICE IN THE CRIB DUE TO AFOREMENTIONED PROCEDURAL AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN THE DRUG RAID.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Orignally posted by Dogbreath: An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever.
Yes!
quote:A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
posted
It's my understanding that we probably have far more SWAT teams in the United States than we need. It's not uncommon to have a SWAT team serving various warrants, for example, that would a generation or two ago have been served by a few cops if not two-safely, no less. Taking into account the overall decrease in violent crime over time, this is inexplicable in terms of a rational response to a threat.
At the same time, however, personally I can't come down overly hard on cops as individuals or even smaller groups for this sort of policy. It's classic institutional creep combined with factors outside of police control (for example, the War on Drugs to some extent and, much less under their control, the enormous arms and equipment surplus generated by our government MIC).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Orignally posted by Dogbreath: An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever.
Yes!
quote:A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
No!
What is the purpose of a machine gun, then? Obviously like any tool it can be used in other ways, but machine guns are designed to spray out lots and lots of bullets in as brief a time as possible with as many bullets hitting etc. etc. I admit I'm a bit at a loss as to what else a machine gun, in its origins or current use, would be considered a tool for if not as many kills with as little effort and time as possible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Orignally posted by Dogbreath: An extremely dangerous precedent, and completely unneccesary. We already have SWAT teams to deal with situations like heavily armed/armored terroists. The fact they used protests and *terrorist attacks* interchangably is extremely disturbing and demonstrates the completely insane escalation of force used by police in America. There's absolutely no good reason to use a machine gun for crowd control. Ever.
Yes!
quote:A machine gun has one purpose, which is to indescriminately kill as many people as possible as quicky as possible.
posted
Machine guns are capable of/commonly used for many other roles than "indisciminanite people mower" including squad cover fire, anti vehicle, the seals quite often prefer a short barrel m60 over a more traditional assault rifle (which by many standards fits the term "machine gun" btw)...so...yea...no.
You mischaracterize the machine gun and given your background I did not want to let it stand as an authoritative opinion. :-)
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Machine guns are capable of/commonly used for many other roles than "indisciminanite people mower" including squad cover fire, anti vehicle, the seals quite often prefer a short barrel m60 over a more traditional assault rifle (which by many standards fits the term "machine gun" btw)...so...yea...no.
You mischaracterize the machine gun and given your background I did not want to let it stand as an authoritative opinion. :-)
Except that covering fire works precisely because people don't usually like running out in the open and getting hit with lots of bullets, which goes back to the whole "indiscriminate people mower" thing. You either mow them down or you rely on their fear of being mowed down to keep them from trying to mow you down.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
we are coming up with definitions for 'only designed to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible' which rely on caveats that make it so that the statement can be made to apply to literally every weapon
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps an argument for indiscriminate mower being the -primary- purpose could be made, although I would disagree with it...but as the -only- purpose? Nope.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
that definition doesn't even really technically make sense as a primary definition of its intended use. it's not like it's a bomb designed to end the lives of anyone in its biggest possible radius or something
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's a silly nitpick. The very uses you describe for it are precisely because of the use of a machine gun-spitting out death at the point aimed. In any event I'm certain you know Dogbreath did not actually mean 'the only time a machine gun is ever used is to indiscriminately mow people down'. Let's say I have some rat poison-designed to kill mammals. Nevertheless obviously everytime I use it my intent isn't to poison all mammals.
The lecture was nice, though! What was your mos was a nice touch.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As nitpicks go this one was fairly straightforward and unsilly, unless you are saying all nitpicks are silly...which might actually be true. I must confess that referring to my post as a "nice lecture" is a bit if a troll move bro...or at least someone trying to stir up some trouble. You tryin to stir up some trouble buddy? *squeaky high pitched Stewie voice* You spreading the crumbs of chaos, yea? Etc ad nauseam.
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
This is a great question...with a simple & straight forward answer. ..
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Machine guns are capable of/commonly used for many other roles than "indisciminanite people mower" including squad cover fire, anti vehicle, the seals quite often prefer a short barrel m60 over a more traditional assault rifle (which by many standards fits the term "machine gun" btw)...so...yea...no.
You mischaracterize the machine gun and given your background I did not want to let it stand as an authoritative opinion. :-)
Yes, I have extensive experience operating the M240, as well as some experience with the M249 SAW (which I dislike), the M27 IAR (meant to replace the SAW in it's role as a light machine gun while still having the functionality and accuracy of a rifle, and which I like), and the M50. I've dug into a position with the M240 and set up fields of fire coordinating with with other gun emplacements in order to provide suppressing fire. This means you and another gunner both cover the same ~30 degrees and fire in alternating 5-8 second bursts, as the weapon quickly overheats otherwise. I have a scar on my hand from getting burned during a barrel change. I also have permanent hearing loss.
So I can absolutely tell you that when you fire a machine gun at someone, your aim is to kill him and everyone near him, behind him, and really in the general vicinity. They are not precision weapons. Your ancillary goal might be to lay down suppressing fire so your men are able to move forward without getting shot, but if they are dumb enough to stand up or reveal themselves then they will be killed. Often, they will be killed regardless of whether or not they reveal themselves, as people tend to overestimate the protection whatever cover they're using provides.
You can also use machine guns to attack vehicles. Unless you are somehow attacking an RC car, your goal is to kill whoever's in that vehicle. If you had any intentions at all of not killing the people in the vehicle, you wouldn't use a machine gun.
In the case of crowd control at a protest, if you use a machine gun to provide covering fire, you will be doing so to kill protestors, and you aren't going to be picky at all about which ones you kill.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: that definition doesn't even really technically make sense as a primary definition of its intended use. it's not like it's a bomb designed to end the lives of anyone in its biggest possible radius or something
Yes, it's not like I was commenting on the stupidity of using a machine gun as crowd control within the context of law enforcement buying machine guns explicitly for use at "protests", but instead was writing a one-sentence treatise on every possible use of a machine gun ever. I mean, you can also use a machine gun for propulsion if you're creative. I'm such a rube.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes, it's not like I was commenting on the stupidity of using a machine gun as crowd control within the context of law enforcement buying machine guns explicitly for use at "protests", but instead was writing a one-sentence treatise on every possible use of a machine gun ever. I mean, you can also use a machine gun for propulsion if you're creative. I'm such a rube.
My comment was more to where the caveats went moreso than what the initial comment was. As for machine gun propulsion, i hear great things about its environmental friendliness.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great! I got out of the Marine Corps in December, got hired on doing cyber security for a DoD contractor and currently work with several Army networks here in Hawaii. It's only tangentially related to what I did in the Marines (VSAT satellite communication/radio communication/networking/collection/oh crap it's something that needs to be programmed/calibrated can you help us/carrying lots of heavy things and batteries and trying to keep extremely expensive equipment from overheating with an air temp of 110), but I had enough certifications and experience to talk my way into it. The past 2 months I've had the pleasure of working all day, and then working another 7 or 8 hours at night and all weekend on online labs, CBTs, etc trying to teach myself a new profession. I got CEH certified recently, working towards testing for CISSP this summer.
I have no social life and don't get out much any more, but on the plus side I'm making a lot more money than I ever have before and am posting here more frequently. I keep meaning to post a landmark (my first) about the whole transition, probably will today or tomorrow while my wife's at school. Maybe.
I read up to chapter 80 or so of HPMOR, then I got into Worm and was completely enthralled for the month or so it took me to read it. If you like HPMOR you'll probably love it, though I recommend sticking with it until arc 8 before stopping - the first 7 arcs are slightly weak (it was before the author knew where s/he was going with the story I think) and the author intends to rewrite them.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: As for machine gun propulsion, i hear great things about its environmental friendliness.
While it's true that guns emit surprisingly few greenhouse gasses (a lot of the carbon is left in solid form, as anyone who's had to clean a gun will tell you), this isn't taking into account the big picture: i.e, we have to consider the lead poisoning issue, both in solid form as well as some of the vapor released. I've also heard some of the ancillary effects (being riddled full of holes, noise pollution, etc.) are bad for local ecosystems.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
It depends on what you mean by "crowd control". I suggest that a sufficiently bad riot may legitimately be stopped by deadly force up to and including grapeshot - the theory being that allowing the riot to continue will kill more people than shutting it down right now, and what's more, the people killed will then be innocents trying to get out of the way instead of rioters trying to kill, loot, and rape. But this is not the same as a protest; which said, the purpose of a protest is to credibly demonstrate that "Hey, we've got a bunch of people here who are angry enough to come out and wave signs on big heavy sticks; wouldn't it be a pity if they got mad enough to take the signs off and use the sticks as God intended?"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
CS gas is pretty effective for riot control if you're trying to end it as quickly as possible. If you've never been exposed to it before it's pretty debilitating, and it still sucks even after you're (relatively) used to it.
Granted, gas masks are cheap and easy to buy so a group of determined and organized rioters might be able to circumvent it - but at that point it's not really a riot, is it?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, when a protest turns violent it's never the whole crowd all of a sudden deciding to turn into bloodthirsty maniacs. It's a handful of people start acting violently and everyone else is kind of stuck. Almost all of the "rioters" you would be machine gunning would be bystanders.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a show where they used a sting grenade on a prison riot and stopped it in its tracks. Like a flash bang but with many small rubber bbs. The rioting inmates instantly fell to the ground into the fetal position as the rubber bbs apparently -hurt-. The show went on to explain that fireing pain nerves deflates mob mentality like a soufle in an earthquake.
-That- being said...
Unless in uniformed combat...
There is simply no excuse to open up with a machine gun on a crowd of people. Full stop.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yo Dogbreath I have an honest question for you, if someone was insulting of the Corps as a branch for substantiated reasons would you take it personally (and get offended) or would you recognize it as the interservice smacktalk that's generally rooted in some sort of legitimate point? (And only sorta pretend to be offended and join in)
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
It depends on what you mean by "crowd control". I suggest that a sufficiently bad riot may legitimately be stopped by deadly force up to and including grapeshot - the theory being that allowing the riot to continue will kill more people than shutting it down right now, and what's more, the people killed will then be innocents trying to get out of the way instead of rioters trying to kill, loot, and rape. But this is not the same as a protest; which said, the purpose of a protest is to credibly demonstrate that "Hey, we've got a bunch of people here who are angry enough to come out and wave signs on big heavy sticks; wouldn't it be a pity if they got mad enough to take the signs off and use the sticks as God intended?"
Has deadly force ever been used legitimately through the history of (semi)democratic governance?
I think its far more likely that it doesn't get to that point unless the government itself has lost legitimacy.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: As for machine gun propulsion, i hear great things about its environmental friendliness.
While it's true that guns emit surprisingly few greenhouse gasses (a lot of the carbon is left in solid form, as anyone who's had to clean a gun will tell you), this isn't taking into account the big picture: i.e, we have to consider the lead poisoning issue, both in solid form as well as some of the vapor released. I've also heard some of the ancillary effects (being riddled full of holes, noise pollution, etc.) are bad for local ecosystems.
lead is natural and i think we can probably get it labeled 'organic' in most states
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Yo Dogbreath I have an honest question for you, if someone was insulting of the Corps as a branch for substantiated reasons would you take it personally (and get offended) or would you recognize it as the interservice smacktalk that's generally rooted in some sort of legitimate point? (And only sorta pretend to be offended and join in)
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Is there any legitimate use of a machine gun in the hands of law enforcement for the use of crowd control with live fire ammunition?
It depends on what you mean by "crowd control". I suggest that a sufficiently bad riot may legitimately be stopped by deadly force up to and including grapeshot - the theory being that allowing the riot to continue will kill more people than shutting it down right now, and what's more, the people killed will then be innocents trying to get out of the way instead of rioters trying to kill, loot, and rape. But this is not the same as a protest; which said, the purpose of a protest is to credibly demonstrate that "Hey, we've got a bunch of people here who are angry enough to come out and wave signs on big heavy sticks; wouldn't it be a pity if they got mad enough to take the signs off and use the sticks as God intended?"
Has deadly force ever been used legitimately through the history of (semi)democratic governance?
I think its far more likely that it doesn't get to that point unless the government itself has lost legitimacy.
If you are referring to the government using deadly force then of course. Not what I would call legitimately, but certainly deadly force has been used against protesters - especially strikers - not so long ago in US history. I don't find it hard to imagine those conditions returning.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The US government massacred a bunch of WWI veterans when they were peacefully protesting. So yeah its precisely my point that using deadly force against unarmed as "crowd control" is almost always going to be an illegitimate use of force.
The problem is that whatever moral or legal ambiguity there might be vanishes when deadly force with heavy weapons is the first resort rather than the last.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It certainly has happened and we are recreating the conditions - militarized police, union busting, income inequality - to have it happen again. One needn't wait till it is too late to recognize the warning signs. You know that whole thing about being doomed to repeat it...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that is illustrates the growing escalation of force and violence of American law enforcement against non-existent threats; and then the ginning up of evidence to justify the excessive use of force retroactively; which will be met with growing dissent, protests, and violence ergo justifying the escalation in an endless cycle.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: boots...what action are you calling for?
Being aware. Paying attention to what your local city budgets are buying in terms of equipment and speaking up. Voting for community oversight on police. More community/neighborhood police rather than SWAT-type specialization. Support unions. Address income inequality by voting before it gets to the pitchfork stage. Support campaign finance limits.
It all ties together.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: A conspiracy dude? Lots of them? A systematic nation wide epidemic of police conspiracy? Really?
I don't think that what he suggest is a conspiracy; I think that it is just natural consequences. The wealthy and powerful get more wealth and powerful and want to protect that wealth and power. Military suppliers want to make money by opening up new domestic markets. Police want to feel safer. Crime rises with inequality so we (because we also want to feel safe) let whoever makes us feel safe do whatever they want. Plus, terrorism. Media want to get viewers so they overhype threats (fear sells!), ditto.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
