I'll go ahead and say the unpopular truth....we need to not just defund, but disband the police. Fire them all, then allow them to reapply for their jobs, but those with excessive complaints, or any crimes on their record don't get hired back or at a minimum should have to go back to school with no pay, then pass a psychological screening far more stringent than the one they passed originally.
No amount of funding change (which is needed), demilitarization (which only means not making them more militarized, no one's taking their swat tanks or snipers), no amount of public outrage, or chiefs quitting will make a difference if the same criminal cops are still on the force, they need a massive purge and complete culture change or things will not get better.

One other change that I believe will definitely help, remove immunity so criminal cops not only go to prison, but also are first in line to pay restitution for their own crimes out of their own pockets, then once they're bankrupt the union's pockets, and if they both run out of money the city/state comes last in line for obligation to pay. When cops lose everything when they're convicted for abusing their authority, the bad apples will straighten up fast or quit.

Wow.

This is why our police does not need to have access to military gear. You had one suspect with a weapon, you talk him out or you rush multiple parts of the home. What you don't do is blow out every wall in every room, tear down the fences all around, and make it look like a warzone.

Now, as a dog owner, I would be pissed because if they knocked down my fence, both of my beloved pets would run out and be hurt or killed. What if there were kids playing in those other yards? The sheer lack of consideration for the damage they were doing is atrocious.

The worst part of this is none of that money that is going to be paid on lawsuits over this is going to come out of those jackbooted thug's pockets. It's going to come out of the people of that community's taxes. That is horseshit. I would force them to sell their toys and demilitarize, then take that money to pay people.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR OUR POLICE TO BE ARMED WITH MILITARY GEAR!!! If you are going to police us with the same gear the military has, then you are basically the military and should be subject to Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act of 1807.

*promote

Abolish Nafta and we can demilitarize our border. We caused Mexico to fail...we just have to help them fix it.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
Your claiming cutting police wages will make these situations less frequent, and better handled.

Let me stop you right there.
I'm not for cutting wages of rank and file police officers. I am against how much we pay the law enforcement agencies to grow into what they've become. Long gone are days of the donut eating cops. Say hello to the days of the militarized police.
If you and NetRunner cannot differentiate between cutting rank and file officer's wages and me not wanting the pentagon to give local police weapons and equipment used by the military, then I'm afraid you both are too far gone. I don't want the law enforcement agencies to be as well funded as they are today, because they've grown into something horrible and tyrannical.
The solution is limited government. The solution is not continuing to over fund these agencies until the entire nation is one big police state.


So in summary, your against militarizing our police forces. Who could really be against that?

What part of this story is the result of militarizing the police?

How would your demilitarized police force have prevented this? I still see a world where police officers with guns respond to the mother's call. I still see a world where this killer gets into the police force and ends up murdering someone.

Can you explain, in small words so we statists can follow, how demilitarizing the police would have kept this murder out of the police force?

>> ^demon_ix:
^ So your solution is for Israel to curl up and die?

That's not what he said. What he said was that the speech was not a compromise in any form and will not progress the peace process forward.

Demilitarize, let us still incur on your lands, let us not concede the areas we took over since 67, let us not stop putting up blockades, let us not have final status for Palestinian refugees, let us keep our Israeli settlements but hey you get to have a flag and a passport!

>> ^rougy:
Israel cannot keep treating the Palestinians as if they were animals, and then expect them to behave any other way.

The obvious response to that is "The Palestinians can't keep strapping bombs to young men and women, and expect to get through the border checkpoint" .

>> ^geo321:
Netanyahu also conditioned that Palestine should be demilitarized and not have control of its airspace. So essentially a state without sovereignty. That along with continued settlements seems like one step forward two steps back.

All negotiations start at opposite sides. Ex-President Carter said that he had more obstacles from Begin at the time, and they still got him and Sadat to sign a peace treaty.

Netanyahu also conditioned that Palestine should be demilitarized and not have control of its airspace. So essentially a state without sovereignty. That along with continued settlements seems like one step forward two steps back.

I think the world just needs to carve a territory out of somewhere in the middle east and call it Palestine. Just like they did for Israel. Arbitrarily give them some chunk of land at least 2 miles away from Israel. The 2 mile buffer must be an uninhabited demilitarized zone. Put the Palestinians in this new country and never the twain shall meet again. Not realistic I know, but that's what needs to happen. There will never be a solution to this mess if the two people are allowed to remain in proximity to each other. They just need to 'moat' off Isreal from its terrorist neighbors and then any violence becomes a matter of internal Isreali security.

Who should give up the Territory? Two options depending on how you view it...

1. The United States should create a 51st state "Palestine" from its own territory. This is because the US was (primarily) the one that took away all the Palestinian land after WW2 and displaced its people. All the Palestinans get relocated to this New Palestine and it is ceded to them forever. Maybe we should give them Rhode Island...

2. Italy should create a new country "Isreal" from its own territory. This is because Isreal was destroyed by the Roman Empire which took away all the Isreali land, scattered its people, and turned it into Palestine. All Isrealis are are relocated to this New Isreal and it is ceded to them forever. Maybe they should give them Sicily...

That's a quite thoughtful and eloquent reply, kronos.

I don't accept the premise that a demilitarized USofA would suddenly be open to attack* from other nations, but certainly the USofA would not be quite so able to throw its weight around everywhere else in the world, economically and politically, if it were not for the massive US military. But that's a question different from my immediate concern.

*I think it was Deng Xiopeng (sp?) who laughed out loud when asked, considering China's 30 million soldiers or some ridiculous number, whether China could, hypothetically, invade the United States. To paraphrase: "Nobody can invade the United States. There are ___ million guns..."

Anyway... Large powers generally don't attack one another. They invade tiny countries like Grenada and Panama.

Just brilliant. Every time there's another one of these I think 'nah, it won't get me this time'... then... *argh, no... I'm not going to....*

Almost teared up again... dangit.

It was brilliant when it was just him but it's even more powerful with the other people involved too, hurray for showing the happy side of life. (although there are a few poignant bits in there too (the demilitarized zone for example)

A lil histroy from Wikipedia:

The Iowa-class battleships served in every major U.S. war of the latter half of the 20th century. In World War II, they defended aircraft carriers and shelled Japanese positions before being placed in reserve at the end of the war. Recalled for action during the Korean War, the battleships provided artillery support for UN forces fighting against North Korea. In 1968, New Jersey was recalled for action in the Vietnam War and shelled Communist targets for U.S. forces near the Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone. All four were reactivated and armed with missiles during the Cold War as part of the 600-ship Navy. In 1991, Missouri and Wisconsin fired missiles and 16-inch guns at Iraqi targets during the Gulf War. All four battleships were decommissioned in the early 1990s, and were removed from the Naval Vessel Register in 2006.

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