patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

bob2356 says

Nothing like a little critical thinking.

Exactly... The soon you start with that, the better off you'll be!

So your idea of critical thinking is just mouthing whatever blather you find on some internet blog? Perfect.

My question still stands. Why don't fidelitie's numbers jive with Medicare spending? Of course in your world that would mean medicare is lying about their spending. After all fidelity is an IRA company. There is certainly nothing to be gained for them if they juiced up their numbers to scare people into saving more. Nothing at all.

Before you start your idiotic ranting, I don't know or care if fidelity did or didn't twist their numbers. I just know the numbers that you seem to have an almost religious belief in don't add up. Your response so far is strictly trolling 101 shuck and jive. Of course I expect nothing less.

Call it Crazy says

The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it’s ever been. It is more educated than it’s ever been."

Clearly not talking about Chicago these days... guess he had no problem

dealing with Coke dealers who shot up his neighborhood...

Howdy There says

I'm betting no police forces have actual tanks. Tanks have heavy armour, tracked mobility and an offensive anti-armour cannon.

LAPD come knocking on your door...see the : )

The smiley face is covering a ram not a cannon. Has armour. Not a tracked vehicle. 1 out of 3 criteria = not a tank.

http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/los-angeles-police-museum-los-angeles?select=jTJqst7ALEQ-TN53V99Jyg#jTJqst7ALEQ-TN53V99Jyg

Call it Crazy says

Boy, I hope Obama has a great round on the golf course this weekend and can shoot maybe 6 over par...

You know, he needs to have PRIORITIES!!!

You left out the economy. Maybe he does not think it's a problem.

Howdy There says

Not a tracked vehicle. 1 out of 3 criteria = not a tank.

may not have a big gun... but tanks dont always have tracks to be tanks.

so at best 2 out of 3.

Tanks do have to have tracks.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/american-tanks.asp

Or try googling "what is an army tank".

Selfish, retard Old Fucks! That money could pay off a MillXYer's education loans.

Maybe OJ and the son tag teamed them.

Howdy There says

Tanks do have to have tracks.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/american-tanks.asp

Or try googling "what is an army tank".

have it your way...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40

Seriously?

The Antonov A-40, which admittedly doesn't have tracks, was the plane/delivery system and not the tank. The specs identify that the Antonov A-40 carried a Russian T-60, which had tracks. If in doubt, look at the picture which shows a tracked vehicle with a plane attached, or the other way around if you prefer.

Even this obscure example has tracks.

Howdy There says

Had they stormed the correct house, the flashbang grenade used as a diversionary device could have saved a police officer's life. This case is evidence that when weapons are used in error there can be devastating effects, but not that the weapons are inappropriate when used properly.

You really need to read up on what these weapons are, where they are going, and how they are being used instead of blindly defending them.

Had they stormed the correct house? This was supposed to be the correct house. The police story has changed several times already. The police team made a buy at the house, an informant made a buy at the house, there were armed men outside the house, there was no one outside the house.

The guy they were after was a low level drug dealer. WTF is so urgent about popping someone over a $50 meth sale (no weapons or drugs were found anywhere, where did they go?) that the swat team needed to storm the house at 3am 18 hours after the alleged drug buy? We're not talking the french connection here. Why not s simple stake out for a day or two until the guy leaves the house or shows up at the house? You know, the old fashioned non macho big dick way that got the job done but didn't get people killed. Then they would have known exactly who was or was not in the house. Of course if you are just going to do things the old fashioned way you miss out on getting lots of cool toys and lots of drug fighting grant money from the federal government.

How can there be an appropriate use for this kind of force when the people using it can't get simple police procedure or their stories together?

Side note the ada says the alleged drug dealer could be charged for the injuries to the baby.

Hey Bob,

"This was supposed to be the correct house. The police story has changed several times already."

"...no weapons or drugs were found anywhere, where did they go?"

"Then they would have known exactly who was or was not in the house."

"How can there be an appropriate use for this kind of force when the people using it can't get simple police procedure or their stories together?"

They made serious mistakes. Maybe charges should be pending. I won't argue that. Getting the wrong address seems unbelievably incompetent.

But tell me this. Would you want a family member to go into a criminal's house without body armour, diversionary grenades and weapons equivalent to what the criminals are likely to have?

If you have some critical evidence on the nature of these weapons that I'm not aware of, I'm interested in hearing it, instead of blindly condemning them.

Howdy There says

But tell me this. Would you want a family member to go into a criminal's house without body armour, diversionary grenades and weapons equivalent to what the criminals are likely to have?

I would expect a family member who was a cop to have enough sense to not go rushing into anyone's house with an assault team loaded with automatic weapons over $50 worth of meth from a know drug dealer. Cops know who these guys are and where they can be found. They can find them and arrest them easy enough in most cases with some plain old police work. Once a police force has a lot of hardware and is paying big bucks for training swat people there is a lot of pressure to use it to justify the cost.

Howdy There says

If you have some critical evidence on the nature of these weapons that I'm not aware of, I'm interested in hearing it, instead of blindly condemning them.

Read it again. I'm not blindly condemning the weapons. I'm condemning the overkill the weapons generate. Use it or lose it. Do you know that an ever increasing number of states require swat teams for all felony arrests. A dawn swat team (on overtime) for check kiters, embezzlers, or tax evaders hardly seems like a justified use of taxpayer dollars when a couple of guys on regular patrol could just knock on the door. Over 90% of crimes are property crimes, not running down dangerous felons. Burglers and car thieves are almost never armed. Not to mention that things can go badly wrong with swat team raids even under the best of circumstances.

Where is all the danger to police that justifies the use of this hardware? The number of police deaths per year have been steadily declining since the 60's from the low to mid 200 a year range to around 150 a year. Since there are 900k police today vs 400k in 1970 it means a cop on the street has 1/3 the chance of being killed in 2014 than in 1970. Don't bother to argue it is because of the military hardware is being used. The trend downward has been flat since before all the military hardware really came pouring into police forces in the last 10 years.

Perhaps, a big perhaps, a single regional swat team could be justified. But there are many places where there are multiple overlapping teams within a small area. This just doesn't make sense. Cornelia, where we are talking, about is a town of 3500 people 1.5 hours from Atlanta with nothing around it. What possible justification can there be for a multijurisdictional SWAT team in a town of 3500 in the middle of no where? Be serious. It took them 18 hours to put together the raid. They could have driven in a swat team from Miami or NY in less than 18 hours for christ sakes, never mind Atlanta.

indigenous says

Nope just a typo

It's not a typo, it's a totally incorrect usage.

indigenous says

Kant was the guy who was trying to teach Elephants German irregular verbs, yea lot of knowledge there.

How does trying to teach elephants german irregular verbs prove or disprove his lack of knowledge? Anyway Metaphysics of Morals was a philosophical work not auto biographical. I actually had to read it for second year college philosophy. That was heavy going.

Ceffer says

Maybe OJ and the son tag teamed them.

They were part of the zionist new world order. It was a false flag operation to start a global war against leggy blondes. Nicole's father was from kansas, he knew someone that lived in ethiopia, who was second cousin to someone who once lived in isreal for 5 minutes who dated a girl from hong kong who had the exact same initials as James A. de Rothschild second wife's grandmother. That is why Nicole had to die, it's perfectly clear. See it's all tied together..

bob2356 says

It's not a typo, it's a totally incorrect usage.

How so? bob2356 says

How does trying to teach elephants german irregular verbs prove or disprove his lack of knowledge? Anyway Metaphysics of Morals was a philosophical work not auto biographical. I actually had to read it for second year college philosophy. That was heavy going.

It indicates his sanity.

Call it Crazy says

Maybe you should just go sleep it off....

trolling 101 shuck and jive.

indigenous says

How so

because a priori is not a synonym for beforehand in latin or english.

indigenous says

It indicates his sanity.

sanity is not a synonym for knowledge. kant's sanity was fine. his brevity was severely lacking.

bob2356 says

because a priori is not a synonym for beforehand in latin or english.

I don't see where I used it in that context.

bob2356 says

sanity is not a synonym for knowledge. kant's sanity was fine. his brevity was severely lacking.

It is a sign of intent. Hitler was smart too but his intent was insane.

"The number of police deaths per year have been steadily declining since the 60's from the low to mid 200 a year range to around 150 a year."

From this link:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904

"The country's first official SWAT team started in the late 1960s in Los Angeles. By 1975, there were approximately 500 such units. Today, there are thousands. According to surveys conducted by the criminologist Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University, just 13% of towns between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a SWAT team in 1983. By 2005, the figure was up to 80%."

"Don't bother to argue it is because of the military hardware is being used."

But I must, because the timelines synch, and it makes sense. I think one could also argue that they've gone too far in recent history with the following corollary:

"Over 90% of crimes are property crimes, not running down dangerous felons. Burglers and car thieves are almost never armed."

Unfortunately, the police lack the crystal ball required to know which felons will be armed and which won't. Workers in other fields use safety precautions 100% of the time to reduce risk. Police may have to face limitations because sometimes their safety precautions injure innocents.

"Perhaps, a big perhaps, a single regional swat team could be justified. But there are many places where there are multiple overlapping teams within a small area."

I think I can agree with this. Police forces need to take a hard look at when and how they use SWAT teams.

I'd love to live in a world where police are armed with night sticks and whistles, and it's enough.

I should add Bob that the debate should be about the collateral damage caused by police having more aggressive equipment and tactics versus the reduced risk to police and possible reduced collateral damage due to a quick takedown (picture a running gunfight that the police aren't winning.)

In the case that FortWayne brought up in comment 32, it seems unlikely that baby Bou Bou would have been hurt if the police were limited to line of sight weapons. In another case an officer might have gotten shot because a criminal wasn't incapacitated by a flashbang grenade.

bob2356 says

Ah Ha. Apples and oranges. I'm not talking about your post I'm talking about the sentence "every single possible development/outcome is prescribed apriori in the rule book." The only word that could possibly used substituted (at least that would make reasonable sense) is beforehand. That is neither the definition nor the intent of a priori.

Show where I used that context.

Howdy There says

"The country's first official SWAT team started in the late 1960s in Los Angeles. By 1975, there were approximately 500 such units. Today, there are thousands. According to surveys conducted by the criminologist Peter Kraska of Eastern Kentucky University, just 13% of towns between 25,000 and 50,000 people had a SWAT team in 1983. By 2005, the figure was up to 80%."

The decrease in fatalities doesn't even begin to correlate with the increase in swat teams. Look at your own numbers above. The dramatic drop in deaths happened before the large numbers of swat teams came on the scene. Well before military hardware was available. Read your own article.

The Swat teams that did exist 20-30 years ago weren't used like they are today. They were brought in for hostage situations or civil unrest not to have a large military style invasion of houses to arrest low level drug dealers or even white collar criminals.

Howdy There says

I should add Bob that the debate should be about the collateral damage caused by police having more aggressive equipment and tactics versus the reduced risk to police and possible reduced collateral damage due to a quick takedown (picture a running gunfight that the police aren't winning.)

No the debate should be about the justification for the current usage of swat teams. Read your own article. The police broke into a house and ended up with one of them killled. This happened directly because a swat team was used. The guy had 20 pot plants. Does anyone really believe someone is going to come out shooting and killing cops over 20 pot plants if cops walked up in the middle of the day and knocked on the door? Over a $50 meth sale? Over an outstanding drug or burglary warrant. Be serious. A lot more cops are killed in car accidents than in these situations.

There can't be any debate about reduced risk until someone actually does a large study of the same types of arrests with swat teams and with regular arrests that shows there actually is a reduced risk. My gut feeling is the huge increase in violence involved in swat raids is getting more people injured or killed, including cops, than just walking up and arresting people.

You keep ducking this point. By your own reasoning a swat team should be employed any time a cop could get hurt. If so then a swat team should be used for all traffic stops and domestic violence call outs. Traffic stops and domestic violence are the most dangerous things police do, A ski buddy who is a good friend for many years had a 25 year career at nypd including esu, harbor unit, and swat. He said many times domestic violence calls scared the crap out of him every time.

I still contend that swat teams are self perpetuating. The more time and money tied up in a swat team the more pressure to use it whether it's appropriate or not. No comment on the need for a swat team in a podunk town of 3500 in the middle of nowhere? How big could the police force be for a town that size? A lot of this swat team stuff is about grabbing gee wiz neato equipment and money from the federal government, not about the best use of police resources.

bgamall4 says

bob2356 says

They were part of the zionist new world order.

I am not the only one who thinks you are a terminal idiot, Bob.

Yea but it's 3 to 1 against you.

I don't think we're actually that far apart on this.

"The dramatic drop in deaths happened before the large numbers of swat teams came on the scene."

Agreed, however the dramatic drop did occur with the introduction of SWAT teams. So it suggests that having SWAT teams isn't a bad thing. It does not suggest that using them for everything is beneficial.

"There can't be any debate about reduced risk until someone actually does a large study of the same types of arrests with swat teams and with regular arrests that shows there actually is a reduced risk."

I agree with this.

"By your own reasoning a swat team should be employed any time a cop could get hurt."

No. As I said in comment 53, police may (correction, will) have to face limitations because sometimes their safety precautions injure innocents.

"I still contend that swat teams are self perpetuating."

Easy fix. Limit the number of SWAT teams only set clear, reasonable rules on their use.

Professor, no disagreement with what you said. They shouldn't be abusing their power.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

You people are too weird for me.

Sez the alternate dark-passenger personality of turtledove.

Howdy There says

Agreed, however the dramatic drop did occur with the introduction of SWAT teams

No it didn't, numbers continued to rise then fell starting in the late 70's. The numbers simply don't track swat team growth. They track the crime statistics.

Howdy There says

Easy fix. Limit the number of SWAT teams only set clear, reasonable rules on their use.

Never going to happen. The genie is out of the bottle and getting bigger every day. Swat teams make dramatic headlines to impress local voters. Swat teams are a great source of goodies that uncle sam pays for (some police departments grab all they can get then sell off a lot, nice). Swat teams are cool and fun compared to riding around in a squad car. A swat raid is a lot more gratifying than sitting on a stakeout for 48 hours, even if it costs 10 times as much and gets people killed. They are ego effective.

I'm not saying swat teams shouldn't exist. I'm saying swat teams are formed randomly then used frequently and indescrimantly without a shred of data to analyse their cost or safety effectiveness. That should have been done before opening up the pandora's box of military hardware.

New Renter says

Well we are just a few short weeks from the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

That's June 28th, mark your calenders!

Up to that point the 20th century had been relatively calm too. That one assassination triggered WWI, the Red-White Russian Civil War (plus Spain), WWII (plus genocide), the Cold War (which includes Korea, Vietnam, etc), and probably all of the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot purges

Good historic point. Hadn't realized that it's been 100 years, but yeah.

Call it Crazy says

Native Indians

Native Indians. How can conservatives so comically stupid about race when they are so obsessed over it?

Call it Crazy says

Boy, I hope Obama has a great round on the golf course this weekend and can shoot maybe 6 over par...

You're just upset they let a black man into the country club.

Clearly, you're not upset about the time Obama has spent golfing on vacation.

And it's not the economy either...

Interesting that the thDan8267 says

Well we are just a few short weeks from the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

That's June 28th, mark your calenders!

100th anniversary of the Fed just last year.

Coincidence? I think not

So I will takes bob's reticence as an admission that he was smoking dope on this subject.

indigenous says

Show where I used that context.

For christ sakes read my post. I'm not talking about what you wrote. Reality wrote it in the original post. It's what I've been talking about the whole time. Catch up.

Too much trouble

bgamall4 says

New Renter says

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

You people are too weird for me.

Sez the alternate dark-passenger personality of turtledove.

He won't answer me because when it comes down to it he is afraid, very afraid. :)

Call it Crazy says

Nice comparison.... Comparing 8 years of Bush vacations against 2 years of Obama...

You're a real rocket scientist!!!

Honey, let me explain how math works.

Bush: 1020 day over 8 years
1020 / 8 = 127.5 days per year

Obama: 78 days in 3 years
78 / 3 = 26 days per year

Given 52 weeks in a year and 5 working days per week, Bush took off 49% of each year in his presidency. Obama, 10%.

Math's a bitch, isn't it.

Call it Crazy says

Also Dan, if you're going to post a graph to prove a point, don't post a graph from the Office of the Democratic Leader.... It kills all of your credibility....

Who creates the graph is irrelevant, unless they pull the tricks that Fox News does with graphs. What matters is the data behind the graph. Guess what, the news agency that reports the number of days Bush and Obama each took off, don't get to make up the numbers. Yes, I know, that's what Fox News does and so you're used to facts varying depending upon who reports them.

But in the real world, the data is a constant. It doesn't matter who reports it, because the facts are always the same facts. That's the way truthful reporting works. Stop watching Fox and conservative radio, and you'll understand this.

Or are you truly stupid enough to be challenging the fact that Bush took off 1020 days during his presidency? Please, go there.

P.S. The graphs come from many different sources, asshole.

Dan8267 says

Honey, let me explain how math works.

Honey???
OK what's going on you too?