Swatting Incidents Lead To Teen’s Arrest

NLW

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
405
Are you really suggesting that 13-15 year old males aren't actively engaging with gender roles, either through experimentation, modelling, or complete internalization of roles and expectations?

The world is changing pretty rapidly overall, and gender roles are no exception in this country. There are some challenges that creates, and unfortunately one of the results is a subgroup of men that react to a loss of privilege by becoming even more aggressive. I'm sure some of this plays a role in most of these idiot kids doing incredibly dumb crap. Yes, a lack of parental supervision, too much free time, too great a feeling of anonymity, and a healthy dose of narcissism play into it all, but toxic responses to internalizing gender roles often plays a part.
 

amdgamer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
4,880
I propose the use of public swatting to punish the people who do this. Swatting will be done to bare ass using a leather belt with aerodynamic holes punched in it. After swatting of perp, the parents get half the number of swats for "ignorant" about their "angel." So long as minors get away with minimal punishment for this crap, there is no disincentive to stop.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
How many kids did the SWAT team save? Was that a residential address, with a tip provided by an anonymous child not near the premise?
And to answer for those that don't know, there were numerous calls, and the answer is the SWAT team had no effect as the shooter committed suicide when regular police officers that were first to the scene responded.

In fact, it was thanks to Columbine that we luckily got rid of the idiotic policy for first responders to do nothing until SWAT arrived. Now, the first responders are instructed they are allowed to do their jobs.
 

crusty_juggler

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
1,241
Are you really suggesting that 13-15 year old males aren't actively engaging with gender roles, either through experimentation, modelling, or complete internalization of roles and expectations?

The world is changing pretty rapidly overall, and gender roles are no exception in this country. There are some challenges that creates, and unfortunately one of the results is a subgroup of men that react to a loss of privilege by becoming even more aggressive. I'm sure some of this plays a role in most of these idiot kids doing incredibly dumb crap. Yes, a lack of parental supervision, too much free time, too great a feeling of anonymity, and a healthy dose of narcissism play into it all, but toxic responses to internalizing gender roles often plays a part.
I'm saying boys are not men.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
You're right to blame the government and police for the things you mentioned. However, you're wrong to shift blame away from the child. Police and government deserve to be held responsible each time they destroy property and traumatize law-abiding citizens. However, what this kid did is wrong, was meant to cause harm, and he should be charged.

Also, I don't think there should be a question of whether to charge someone as an adult. Children should be charged the same if they meant to cause ANY sort of harm. Period. Only when a very young child does something truly by mistake should they MAYBE get off easier than an adult.
Of course the child and parents should be accountable, but why do we even distinguish between a child committing the same crime an adult does?

Obviously its because we hold children to a lower standard. Kids are stupid and do stupid things, and if you give children the opportunity to wield massive power in the form of SWATTING, its inevitable that some will do it. That's all I'm saying, although in addition I still don't really believe in trying children as adults, as why even have the distinction?
 

NLW

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
405
I'm saying boys are not men.

No one's going to argue with that. It makes your original post on the topic seem to lack any real argument, though. Unless, of course, you mean to imply that boys have nothing to do with gender roles. Then we're back to square one.
 

i960

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
335
You people who think that they should just send a patrol car out need to have a real bad incident and then have the police only send out a single patrol car because they don't know if what they were told is true or not.

Is that what you really want?

Yes

You would rather be dead from a real incident that the police didn't know was true or not than have too many members of law enforcement sent to your place for a possibly very bad situation that ends up just being some kid that needs to pay full restitution for playing some stupid prank?

Yes. Because rarely do police actually show up and stop a crime in progress, swat or no swat. They show up to clean up the mess afterwards. Except when they show up based on a tip from an unreliable drug dealer and bust down your door and shoot your dog, because you might have some weed.

I would rather face a criminal than a cop any day. I can defend myself against a criminal, up to and including the use of deadly force. Worst case I might be arrested temporarily until they sort out that it was self defense. You can't defend yourself from cops unless you want to die. Try shooting a cop that busted in your door with a no-knock warrant and see what happens to you. Your ass will get littered with bullets. Do the same to a criminal and you might need to get your carpets cleaned and your door fixed, but otherwise you are fine.
 

dandragonrage

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
8,298
Obviously its because we hold children to a lower standard. Kids are stupid and do stupid things.

If a child doesn't understand that something they did would cause harm and it truly was an accident, that's one thing. However, every single person who has ever SWATted someone knew exactly what they were doing and meant to do it. And thus nobody should EVER get let off for doing it. If you understand what you do, you should be held 100% responsible for it, regardless of age.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,688
They don't "deploy a SWAT team for every 911 call", dingaling. Not sure where you're getting that.

You do understand what SWATting is, yes?
Its not every call its calls of a certain nature without regard to the credibility of the call source.
 

Converge

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
1,254
Frankly I don't care if the little shit stain is five, he should be charged with attempted murder.
I could give two shits if this POS could understand the ramifications of his actions, he understood the world enough to want to cause pain.

They don't understand at all. Obviously this could have gone horribly wrong, leading to multiple people dead police and civilians included. They need to start making hardcore examples of people that do this and charge and convict them as harshly as possible.
 

crusty_juggler

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
1,241
I state that thirteen year-olds do not behave like grown men and I get hit with a cavalcade of Sarah Lawrence gender studies 101 buzzwords.

"toxic responses to internalized gender roles"

"rapidly evolving gender roles"

"subgroup of men that react to a loss of privilege "

Good grief.
 

NLW

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
405
I state that thirteen year-olds do not behave like grown men

That's not what you said, though. You were making a wider claim about how gender roles, and reports of those roles in people's actions, played into events like the one in the reported article.

OK, so I went into more detail, and generalized a bit more than I needed to. I don't think I'm stating anything that's really controversial here. Gender roles are different than they were 50 years ago - even 25 years ago - I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. Boys in particular face problems as they learn not only how to be men, but how to be men when they often do not have good role models, often due to societal pressures forcing even grown men to change their notions of proper gender roles. Some people react poorly to these pressures, and rebel against them. Pretty standard stuff. Sorry I focused on the bad in all of this, but we are talking about some irresponsible fool and swatting here.
 

Kalabalana

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,313
The family of the child should pay the tax payer costs of the swatting incident, and give the child a few thousand hours of community service.
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
How many kids did the SWAT team save?
Guaranteed none if they dont even show up


Was that a residential address, with a tip provided by an anonymous child not near the premise?
Does it matter? "HELP HELP there's a guy walking around shooting everyone!" ------ "ok sir, please standby for 15 minutes while we verify your identity"

Please explain to the class how exactly you believe firearm technology or distribution has changed in the US civilian population post 9/11, when we started this police militarization craze....
I do not believe there has been any sudden change since 9/11, it has been a gradual effort for the last 30 years.

So you want to convince us that firearms are now more common today than in the 1950s, where no one would have blinked an eye about students walking around with rifles slung on their backs on campus, and it was normal for your dad to teach you to start shooting when you were old enough to hold a gun... :rolleyes:


This

assault-rifles-pic.jpg


is greater than this

6a00d8341c51c053ef0148c6eb3871970c-450wi



Are you really going to take such disingenuous arguments?


And we have more gun restrictions in place today than at any point in US history
And yet it is even easier for me to purchase a firearm today than 60 years ago. Gun restrictions have not made it harder to acquire weapons of mass destruction, they have simply made the truly insane weapons more difficult to acquire. Your ability wreak carnage is 10x more capable than when Leave it to Beaver was on TV.


and during the prohibition had organized criminals regularly using automatic weapons (something extremely rare to witness today)
I wonder if that is because our police force pose a credible threat to such attempts now.
 

panhead

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
902
First rule of LEOs, cops go home at the end of the day. Second rule, shoot first and see rule #1.
A innocent US citizen is MUCH more likely to be killed by police than by a terrorist or criminal.

www.policestateusa.com
www,killedbypolice.net
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
First rule of LEOs, cops go home at the end of the day. Second rule, shoot first and see rule #1.
A innocent US citizen is MUCH more likely to be killed by police than by a terrorist or criminal.

www.policestateusa.com
www,killedbypolice.net

thats like saying you are more likely to be killed in a car crash than an airplane. The correct analogy is during a terrorist attack, you are more likely to be killed than during a simple robbery.
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
These arguments against a powerful police force are like saying our military is too powerful. The United States has F-22's, steal bomber, aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, and ICBM's to level the playing field against the competition. The police have to be able to respond accordingly with the increased threats available today. Guess what will happen if RPG's and portable tactical nukes become common place in our society?
 

Pure-Platinum-190

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
187
First rule of LEOs, cops go home at the end of the day. Second rule, shoot first and see rule #1.
A innocent US citizen is MUCH more likely to be killed by police than by a terrorist or criminal.

That's not just cop rules though. That's what survivors think like. I've lived by that my whole life and I'm not a cop but I'm from a shitty city. I was once jumped by five (drunk) twenty something year olds and three of them went to the hospital for knife wounds and I just went home, with no charges, and the police had me in handcuffs and I watched the men leave in ambulances. I'm not playing games when you're trying to lay me down.

Legally after the fact I still could've had those guys on 'Gang Assault' charges, too (clear cut case) but as I stabbed one in the face, one in the arm, and one in the ***** I didn't feel the need to press charges. They licked their wounds and I....went home. And don't get me wrong, they were fucking me up (too much for me to keep fighting with fists) before I felt the need to either let them put me down or do something crazy.

If you think only cops think like that you're seriously mistaken. It's one of the nights of my life I wish a little drone was following me to replay the event when people think I'm bullshitting about it. I even managed to throw the knife when the cop wasn't looking because they hadn't patted me down yet (i was handcuffed outside and up against the cop car) and I heard the other cop ask him where the knife was in the distance. I was in handcuffs and did a little twist and chucked it into the neighbors lawn where I retrieved it the next morning before throwing it into a lake.

At that point though I didn't know where the case was going (if charges would pop up) so I was further protecting my own interests (going home). At the end of the day though I was the victim and they got a lesson in humility.

I'm going home or you're killing me.

The' End
 

Pure-Platinum-190

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
187
Edit: I'll also be honest because it's the internet and I'm behind some random screen name.

One of the guys was pounding me when I was kneeling down (with them all on top of me getting their shots), that one guy though was pounding right into the back of my head. I regret that with my life. Allowing that to happen has impacted my life and I won't admit that to anyone in real life. It's years later and I can't help but feel he did damage I didn't recognize at the time. I probably should've also went to the hospital for a brain scan but because I was walking and functioning fine, I declined.

Even in the UFC you can't he in the back of the head.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Guaranteed none if they dont even show up
They didn't show up, the the children were saved by a regular police officer with a pistol. That was my point, which I also explained in the followup post if you read it, in the off chance you didn't realize that.
Does it matter? "HELP HELP there's a guy walking around shooting everyone!" ------ "ok sir, please standby for 15 minutes while we verify your identity"
Go back and read my several responses about how it should have been handled. You probably won't, so here's a cliffs notes:

Step 1: Immediately dispatch the nearest squad car as a first responder to investigate and take appropriate action.
Step 2: Keep the caller on the line, continue to ask questions such as where they are calling from, their full name, how they came across this information, where they are located, and dispatch a second nearby officer to that person to investigate and tell the caller that they have to stay on the line. Chances are good you will be able to root out a bullshitter at this point, so that you aren't releasing the wolves (SWAT) against an innocent target.

Or do you not care if a flashbang lands in your nieces crib, sending her into a coma and burning her face? Would it not bother you if your 7 year old nephew were accidentally shot in the face? Would you not bat an eye when your two dogs that you've raised since they were tiny puppies and are part of your family are shot dead in front of you while you, your wife, and her mother are slammed to the ground face first and handcuffed with a knee in their back looking at their dead bodies? Those type of issues aren't OK with me.
I do not believe there has been any sudden change since 9/11, it has been a gradual effort for the last 30 years.

This http://images.thehollywoodgossip.com/iu/t_xlarge_l/v1364529160/attachment/assault-rifles-pic.jpg is greater than this http://www.adweek.com/files/adfreak/6a00d8341c51c053ef0148c6eb3871970c-450wi
If you believe that a plastic semi-automatic rifle is more dangerous than a wood semi-automatic hunting rifle, I really don't know what to say. I guess you missed the part about how you could legally without any background checks or regulations whatsoever purchase surpluss war equipment, such as an anti-tank rifle for under $100 from that vintage ad?

And you show M16s like they are some new fangled weapon, when they have been in wide distribution since the early 60s, and in fact pre-ban in the mid 80's you could grab yourself a fully automatic one without special license, trust, tax stamp, and 6-12 month wait after all the paperwork.

Either you really aren't a gun guy, or you're the one that is intentionally being misleading as hell pretending that the average civilian today is more militarized than days of yore. Hell, in the days of our founding fathers if you go back to the founding of this country, there was literally no difference whatsoever between how a soldier and civilian were armed, whereas today, no civilian can hope to match the gear our soldiers in Iraq are using. There has however been a very rapid militarization of our police forces following the fear mongering of 9/11.

Which is pretty damn stupid, considering you are 58 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-citizens-58-times-killed-police-terrorists/
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Edit: I'll also be honest because it's the internet and I'm behind some random screen name.

One of the guys was pounding me when I was kneeling down (with them all on top of me getting their shots), that one guy though was pounding right into the back of my head. I regret that with my life. Allowing that to happen has impacted my life and I won't admit that to anyone in real life. It's years later and I can't help but feel he did damage I didn't recognize at the time. I probably should've also went to the hospital for a brain scan but because I was walking and functioning fine, I declined.

Even in the UFC you can't he in the back of the head.
You're absolutely right, and I'm sorry to hear that. Of course today the president would probably on on television and address the nation that your attacker could have been his son, and have the media run a smear campaign against you showing only a doctored mugshot of you, while they show your attackers middle-school class photos from years ago. Better to be armed and go through that though than the alternative, as who knows if they would have stopped, as I've seen youtube videos where thugs jump up and land with both feet on the head of a guy passed out on the concrete.

And with SWAT teams, those guys have to think that they are being called in to dire situations each and every time, or why else would they be there? Surely having had their own life threatening experiences over their careers, they are going to go in with the attitude that they are the hammer, and start looking for nails to hit, which is perfectly natural instinct. That's why its so crucial that we don't abuse SWAT like we have post-9/11, and generally have them called in for their traditional roles such as bank robberies and the like, where that "hammer-nail" mentality with all the right hardware is EXACTLY what you want.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
Both McFry and Ducman69 are on opposite sides of... stupid (?) in this thread. Both using the same absurd arguing points and obscene exaggeration. :D

Kid should get fined at the minimum.
 

McFry

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
1,715
They didn't show up, the the children were saved by a regular police officer with a pistol. That was my point, which I also explained in the followup post if you read it, in the off chance you didn't realize that.
So you would prefer SWAT not respond to armed gunmen killing dozens of people. A single cop and his six shooter oughta do it. Gotcha. Just because this one cop got lucky doesnt meant that is the appropriate response level. Since you're a fan of looking up incidents where SWAT made mistakes, how about looking up all of their successes?

Go back and read my several responses about how it should have been handled. You probably won't, so here's a cliffs notes:

Step 1: Immediately dispatch the nearest squad car as a first responder to investigate and take appropriate action.
Step 2: Keep the caller on the line, continue to ask questions such as where they are calling from, their full name, how they came across this information, where they are located, and dispatch a second nearby officer to that person to investigate and tell the caller that they have to stay on the line. Chances are good you will be able to root out a bullshitter at this point, so that you aren't releasing the wolves (SWAT) against an innocent target.
I did read your original suggestion on how to handle domestic terror attacks, and I ignored it because it was complete fantasy. I'm glad you think you know better than trained law enforcement personnel, but just consider for a second maybe you dont know jack shit. Your little ideas that you have running around in your head might just get laughed at by someone who has some experience in the field. It'd kinda be like listening to you armchair your way through a discussion on how NASA should be building their rockets. It's one thing to critique the result, it's another entirely to draft your own process. I mean honestly dont you feel the slightest bit absurd sitting there telling me how to handle a hostage situation? "Welp gee golly I'd keep them on the line first, root out the bullshit ya' know, get to the bottom of things, that's about it hyuk!" Gimme a break. Which by the way many SWAT calls actually entail the caller being the attacker, not a victim. So unless you think the guy staging the attack is gonna take a smoke break to tell ya all about it, chances are you're going to get your threat and then he's going to hang up, not have a little ice cream social with you over the phone.

Or do you not care if a flashbang lands in your nieces crib, sending her into a coma and burning her face? Would it not bother you if your 7 year old nephew were accidentally shot in the face? Would you not bat an eye when your two dogs that you've raised since they were tiny puppies and are part of your family are shot dead in front of you while you, your wife, and her mother are slammed to the ground face first and handcuffed with a knee in their back looking at their dead bodies? Those type of issues aren't OK with me.
Has this ever happened? I mean maybe you have such low regard for SWAT personnel that you think they would enter a building like this, but maybe, just maaaayybbee they do their own bit of recon when they arrive at the scene too. Their training simply yields more valuable intel than what some beat cop is going to tell them.

If you believe that a plastic semi-automatic rifle is more dangerous than a wood semi-automatic hunting rifle, I really don't know what to say.
Well you know, it's what we arm the most advanced military in the world with. Stupid pentagon. It's cute though that you would dismiss a a weapon composed of both metal and plastic (btw LOVE how you just describe the ENTIRE weapon as plastic, classy debate tactic there) when for all intents and purposes this is entirely irrelevant. Is an M-16 made of titanium even better? Pretty sure both are going to give the attacker an equal likelihood of causing carnage. We're not talking the zombie apocalypse here and which weapon will survive longest. We're talking what you can buy over the counter from Academy sporting goods store.

I guess you missed the part about how you could legally without any background checks or regulations whatsoever purchase surpluss war equipment, such as an anti-tank rifle for under $100 from that vintage ad?
Sure legally you could, the point is people didnt. Firearms are much more widespread today than they were 60 years ago. Do you disagree? And I still cant tell if you just purposely go out of your way to misrepresent details or what. You do realize that a $100 firearm from yesteryear was actually somewhat cost prohibitive for most people back then compared to $100 today right? I mean, you cant even buy a firearm for $100 today. It would have also been unlikely people would purchase something like this back then since distribution and marketing were low. I can google where to buy a Barrett 50 cal in my damn neighborhood and have it this afternoon. Too bad it costs $3500. Of course that weapon is significantly more advanced than the clunker you found, which adjusted for inflation would have cost about $1500, which on a value basis was more than what a normal person would spend in a firearm anyway. Good job at cherry picking that gem though, a quick google search for the image links back to dozens of pro-gun websites. Try to hide your bias a little more though k? Or maybe just venture out of your comfort zone on occasion and perceive things from a different angle instead of your pro gun anti-police forums.

And you show M16s like they are some new fangled weapon, when they have been in wide distribution since the early 60s, and in fact pre-ban in the mid 80's you could grab yourself a fully automatic one without special license, trust, tax stamp, and 6-12 month wait after all the paperwork.
Again, this was legal because people didnt do it. Once people starting abusing it the gov't stepped back and said "wait a second, perhaps people shouldnt be walking around with these things". Most gun laws are entirely reactionary to previous events.

Either you really aren't a gun guy, or you're the one that is intentionally being misleading as hell pretending that the average civilian today is more militarized than days of yore.
I'm saying they can be. The firepower at their disposal is infinitely more powerful than pa's winchester.

Hell, in the days of our founding fathers if you go back to the founding of this country, there was literally no difference whatsoever between how a soldier and civilian were armed, whereas today, no civilian can hope to match the gear our soldiers in Iraq are using.
Well heck according to you they're just using plastic junk anyway, easily defeated by a nice wooden bolt action handed down through the family.

There has however been a very rapid militarization of our police forces following the fear mongering of 9/11.
Events like the Boston bombing or the Charlie Hedbo massacre happen and the gov't is still just fear mongering. Sigh...

Which is pretty damn stupid, considering you are 58 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/u-s-citizens-58-times-killed-police-terrorists/
Your exposure to the police is 58x higher than that of terrorist. Lets measure this properly, if confronted with a terrorist or police officer, which do you think is most likely to kill you?
 

Bamboo

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
901
By your own admission, this was a swatting incident as the child claimed that there were bombs in the house (reading FTW). Oh wait...this isn't about the incident. This is about how you don't like police...my bad :rolleyes:

This.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
So you would prefer SWAT not respond to armed gunmen killing dozens of people. A single cop and his six shooter oughta do it.
Its obvious at this point that you're so entrenched in your nonsense that you're unwilling to actual respond to anything I've said, and insist on straw man arguments. SWAT were deployed, but they didn't make it there until the incident was over. It was your example, it doesn't relate to a single anonymous call by a child to residential address (there were numerous calls and it was a school), and demonstrated that regular police forces are faster first responders and can assess the situation and action accordingly. I've said this before, this isn't new information.
I did read your original suggestion on how to handle domestic terror attacks, and I ignored it because it was complete fantasy. I'm glad you think you know better than trained law enforcement personnel, but just consider for a second maybe you dont know jack shit.
Stop talking, think for a second, and now apply what you have just said to yourself. Oops! And this isn't Ducman versus "trained law enforcement", its policy A vs policy B. The new policy B of "SWAT first, ask questions later" is something that has not been practiced until quite recently, and its not practiced outside the United States. That means that "trained law enforcement" both in the United States up until the recent shift, as well as in other countries around the world did not apply "SWAT first" policy.
Has this ever happened? I mean maybe you have such low regard for SWAT personnel that you think they would enter a building like this, but maybe, just maaaayybbee they do their own bit of recon when they arrive at the scene too. Their training simply yields more valuable intel than what some beat cop is going to tell them.
Its now painfully obvious to me that you are so focused on when its your turn to speak, that you aren't reading anything at all. YES IT HAPPENED! I POSTED ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES IN DETAIL IN THIS THREAD! Sorry for the caps, figured maybe your eyes are hard of... seeing... LOL!
Well you know, it's what we arm the most advanced military in the world with. Stupid pentagon. It's cute though that you would dismiss a a weapon composed of both metal and plastic (btw LOVE how you just describe the ENTIRE weapon as plastic, classy debate tactic there) when for all intents and purposes this is entirely irrelevant.
Jesus Christ... I give up, you're just being insanely obtuse at this point, or are just beyond clueless. Be honest, have you ever even FIRED a gun before? Ever? I have lots of guns, I'm a gun nut, and I post on gun forums more than on [H], and I can assure you, you are so full of it it hurts.

Again, the M16/AR15 is not a new firearm, as I said. Its been around since the 60s, as I said. You used to be able to buy them full automatic, as I said. The M16/AR15 is not some recent change that justifies the post 9/11 militarization of police. The cost of the anti-tank rifle was not to point out that its inexpensive, but of how old that ad is, showing that, again, there is no recent militarization of the public, and it is in fact the opposite trend. And no, the point of plastic vs wood, is because there are people like yourself that have absolutely no knowledge of guns and think that putting black plastic on a semi-automatic rifle makes it more dangerous (and yes, I have a duded up Colt AR-15 and PLR-16) than a semi-automatic wood hunting rifle.
gbMini-14s.jpg


Just drop it, you're out of your depth, and you're not even responding to anything I'm actually saying and are just resorting to a straw-man + diarrhea of the mouth argument strategy at this point.

You don't see a problem with SWAT-first ask questions later, and I do, and I've explained why this new development is shit. If you want to argue on that point, fine, but drop this nonsense.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Damn lack of edit; anyway if you can drop the nonsense, please explain to the class why GSG9 and SO overseas are deployed so extremely rarely compared to SWAT in the United States? *pops popcorn*

In 1980, there were approximately 3,000 SWAT raids in the United States, already far in excess of other first world nations. Now, there are more than 80,000 SWAT raids per year in this country! 79 percent of the time, SWAT teams are deployed to private homes. Only 7 percent of all SWAT deployments are for “hostage, barricade or active-shooter scenarios”. By contrast, GSG9, Germany's SWAT, has only 200 members and been deployed a handful of times since its creation in the 70's, leaving regular police forces to respond to all other incidents. This isn't a question of "hating cops" or "knowing better than experts", its a question of why the fuck the US has gone SWAT happy in the last few years, and this is the reason, a simple stupid decision to repurpose war surplus weapons and equpment en masse designed to fight foreign military combatants to use against the domestic civilian population:
As the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have wound down, police departments have been obtaining military equipment, vehicles and uniforms that have flowed directly from the Department of Defense. According to a new report by the ACLU, the federal government has funneled $4.3 billion of military property to law enforcement agencies since the late 1990s, including $450 million worth in 2013. Five hundred law enforcement agencies have received Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, built to withstand bomb blasts. More than 15,000 items of military protective equipment and “battle dress uniforms,” or fatigues worn by the U.S. Army, have been transferred. The report includes details of police agencies in towns like North Little Rock, Ark., (pop: 62,000), which has 34 automatic and semi-automatic rifles, a Mamba tactical vehicle and two MARCbots, which are armed robots designed for use in Afghanistan.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
Damn lack of edit; anyway if you can drop the nonsense, please explain to the class why GSG9 and SO overseas are deployed so extremely rarely compared to SWAT in the United States? *pops popcorn*

In 1980, there were approximately 3,000 SWAT raids in the United States, already far in excess of other first world nations. Now, there are more than 80,000 SWAT raids per year in this country! 79 percent of the time, SWAT teams are deployed to private homes. Only 7 percent of all SWAT deployments are for “hostage, barricade or active-shooter scenarios”. By contrast, GSG9, Germany's SWAT, has only 200 members and been deployed a handful of times since its creation in the 70's, leaving regular police forces to respond to all other incidents. This isn't a question of "hating cops" or "knowing better than experts", its a question of why the fuck the US has gone SWAT happy in the last few years, and this is the reason, a simple stupid decision to repurpose war surplus weapons and equpment en masse designed to fight foreign military combatants to use against the domestic civilian population:

Please, stop with the nonsense. The US has a notably higher crime rate than other countries such as Germany. Yes it is mostly related to certain areas, but as a whole, the nation has more instances in which a SWAT team would be likely to be deployed. And no SWAT team uses tanks. :rolleyes:

For the other poster, you can certainly get some weapons for around $100-150 today. Mosin Nagants, Chinese shotguns in both the US and Canada would fall into that price range. :p
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Please, stop with the nonsense. The US has a notably higher crime rate than other countries such as Germany.
The only problem with making up facts on the internet, is that its easy for someone to call you on them... doh! ;)

I listed the UK and Germany, and the US is smack in the middle of the two in crime rate per capita. WOOPS! And the US has a violence rate about the same as France of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, lower than Canada at 935 per 100,000, and much lower than the UK at 2,034 per 100,000.
In per capita ranking, the United States falls to number 8, between the United Kingdom (No. 6)and Germany(No. 12).
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,073
The only problem with making up facts on the internet, is that its easy for someone to call you on them... doh! ;)

I listed the UK and Germany, and the US is smack in the middle of the two in crime rate per capita. WOOPS! And the US has a violence rate about the same as France of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, lower than Canada at 935 per 100,000, and much lower than the UK at 2,034 per 100,000.

Meant to say murder rate. Violent crime (and especially crime rate) are hard to compare because of differences in laws and what counts as a crime and what doesn't in the various countries you're comparing.
 

Kueller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
5,982
I would rather face a criminal than a cop any day. I can defend myself against a criminal, up to and including the use of deadly force. Worst case I might be arrested temporarily until they sort out that it was self defense. You can't defend yourself from cops unless you want to die. Try shooting a cop that busted in your door with a no-knock warrant and see what happens to you. Your ass will get littered with bullets. Do the same to a criminal and you might need to get your carpets cleaned and your door fixed, but otherwise you are fine.

That's why you get a SUR security door. So when they bang their battering ram, it's just like knocking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnslSas5ZOQ
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Meant to say murder rate. Violent crime (and especially crime rate) are hard to compare because of differences in laws and what counts as a crime and what doesn't in the various countries you're comparing.
Even with Germany's very low murder rate:
1) Remember, 93% of US SWAT raids are not hostage, barricade or active-shooter scenarios. If you only used SWAT for those three things, you'd need less than 1/10th the current US SWAT force.
2) At 80,000 SWAT raids per year, even accounting for the lower murder rate and 1/4 the total population size, you're still completely apples and oranges on US SWAT usage.

And no other country has come close to providing the $4.3 billion of military property to their domestic police force as the United States has done since the late 90s.

And the murder rate in the United States was higher in 1980 (10.2 per 100,000 residents) compared to 4.5 per 100,000 in 2013, less than half), and yet today we have not twice as many SWAT raids, not three, or four times as many, but twenty-seven times as many SWAT raids as we did when our murder rate was over DOUBLE... that is insane!
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
SWATing when a cracked voice pre-teen calls is silly. Send normal cops first to at least do some recon before deploying the hammer. Maybe actually call the house that is supposedly be held hostage while the SWAT is gearing up?

No, the Police are alway right guys. :rolleyes:

Yes



Yes. Because rarely do police actually show up and stop a crime in progress, swat or no swat. They show up to clean up the mess afterwards. Except when they show up based on a tip from an unreliable drug dealer and bust down your door and shoot your dog, because you might have some weed.

I would rather face a criminal than a cop any day. I can defend myself against a criminal, up to and including the use of deadly force. Worst case I might be arrested temporarily until they sort out that it was self defense. You can't defend yourself from cops unless you want to die. Try shooting a cop that busted in your door with a no-knock warrant and see what happens to you. Your ass will get littered with bullets. Do the same to a criminal and you might need to get your carpets cleaned and your door fixed, but otherwise you are fine.

you can use google and find cases where people hace successfully defended their home (first) and themselves (second) in court. Paranoia is rampant when in comes to police, I don't think the stats really indicate a sever problem of this happening, realistically most people will never have the problem either.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
Sorry was going to respond to first person but decided not to. Forgot to clear the quote response was for i960
 

Pure-Platinum-190

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
187
Paranoia is rampant when in comes to police, I don't think the stats really indicate a severe problem of this happening, realistically most people will never have the problem either.

So long as it's only happening to some people it's fine and not that it just shouldn't be happening at all.


I'm also always amazed at how well mail carriers can handle everyone's dogs on a daily basis for years but cops being so trained up as they should be feel the need to kill any dog at any sign of a problem. Sometimes even a dog that is in a backyard the cop had no business being in. A cop shoots your dog and it's 'tough shit' but you shoot a cop dog and it's prison.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...g-killed-by-robber-inspires-new-law/70415970/
 

Converge

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
1,254
Fry, you clearly have no knowledge regarding firearms and the armed society we have now and have had in the past. Drop it from your argument, you're not helping yourself what so ever by continuing to mention it. You're clearly misinformed or are holding some ridiculous bias on the subject.

Are you even aware that in the gun community VERY FEW people own automatic weapons? Considering the NFA act and the excessive steps paperwork and money that goes into owning a full auto gun today, its a rarity in the community. You're acting like everyone and their mother owns fully automatic M16's.

Regarding "military rifles" like AR15's (a semi auto M16 variant), they are RARELY used in crime. Something like 90%+ of all gun violence comes from handguns.

So your points just dont make sense. You've been misinformed.
 

Converge

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
1,254
And Ducman has been pretty spot on with his information. I agree 100%. The fact is that violent crime and murder has been on a decline here in the U.S. for a while now. Yet the police have continued to increase armament and presence 10 fold. One could argue that there are more "mass killings" now a days and that any minute you could be murdered by a crazy anti social anti government Nut. It's a bunch of misleading shit coming from the media and is a big excuse for the militarization of the police.

I don't care what the situation is but police don't need 50 cal's or desert camo and ghillie suits. Nor do they need an armored MRAP at every local precinct. It's getting outlandish and ridiculous. Years ago police were much more likely to be friendly and helpful. Today it's like every law abiding citizen is treated like a fucking criminal. It's sickening and disheartening. The police force as a whole are is looking more and more like a military presence which is extremely concerning. If this shit continues we could only imagine what it will be like two decades from now. It does not lead to anything good I can tell you that much.
 

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
So long as it's only happening to some people it's fine and not that it just shouldn't be happening at all.


I'm also always amazed at how well mail carriers can handle everyone's dogs on a daily basis for years but cops being so trained up as they should be feel the need to kill any dog at any sign of a problem. Sometimes even a dog that is in a backyard the cop had no business being in. A cop shoots your dog and it's 'tough shit' but you shoot a cop dog and it's prison.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...g-killed-by-robber-inspires-new-law/70415970/

There are not many things where mistakes and unfortunate bad events don't happen. Realizing it, doesn't mean I don't feel bad for people who have that happen to them. Just means I understand that reality dictates that it is going to happen.

Secondly, its not tough shit for all dog owners either:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/mar/18/coeur-dalene-settles-with-owner-of-dog-killed-by/
 

panhead

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2003
Messages
902

Gavv

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 4, 2005
Messages
14,552
The taxpayers get hit with a $80K judgment and the LEO that killed the dog keeps his job and suffers no prison time for cruelty to animals.

You or I would be sitting in a jail cell for killing a dog in a van.

Typical of attitude of LEOs that the laws don't apply to them.

The taxpayer always pays. That is a pretty simple concept that shouldn't require explaining

As to your other comment there is some distinctions between an officer performing his job and making mistakes and a citizen doing the same thing not doing a police officer job.

Animal cruelty can he a misdeanor first offense as well with a fine and jail time, which if you're advixating the same treatment, then of course you probably won't be happy or in agreement when lawyers get involved
 
Top