facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Local departments add military vehicles,gear at no cost



Published: Tue, August 19, 2014 @ 12:05 a.m.

Authorities get surplus equipment for variety of uses at no cost

photo

The BAE Caiman sits in a Boardman Township shed waiting to be outfitted by the township police department. The $737,000 vehicle was obtained through the Law Enforcement Support Office at no cost.

By Peter H. Milliken

and ROBERT CONNELLY

news@vindy.com

YOUNGSTOWN

In the aftermath of unrest in Ferguson, Mo., and complaints about the “militarization” of police, area law-enforcement departments also have received free military-surplus vehicles and equipment.

But Valley police authorities reject the notion that local police forces are being militarized.

“A lot of this stuff is not being employed or deployed in a military fashion. ... A lot of this stuff is being used in a utility fashion,” said John Elberty, commander of the Mahoning Valley Crisis Response Team.

The Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office has received all-terrain military vehicles, a pickup truck, a van, a sport utility vehicle and one M-16 military rifle from the Department of Defense.

The rifle can be set to be used either as a semiautomatic or automatic weapon.

Law-enforcement officers are permitted to carry fully automatic rifles only after proper training, said Maj. William Cappabianca.

One of the Humvees was used for road patrol during heavy snowstorms during the past two winters, Cappabianca said.

The SUV is used to transport guns and ammunition to the firing range; the pickup truck and van are used in the day-reporting inmate work detail program; and the M-16 is assigned to the road-patrol division.

“Thank God, we’ve never had to use it,” Cappabianca said of the rifle.

The sheriff’s office has requested up to 30 more free M-16s from the DOD, but is still awaiting word as to whether that request will be granted, Cappabianca said.

The sheriff’s office would like the additional rifles so one can be placed in each patrol cruiser, Cappabianca said.

“It shoots [farther], and it’s more accurate” than shotguns, which are being phased out, the major said.

“I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it,” he said of the M-16.

Among the other surplus items the sheriff’s office has acquired free from the Defense Department are three safety and rescue kits, 104 empty military field bags, four digital cameras assigned to the detective and information technology divisions, 19 pairs of cold-weather gloves and 72 pairs of thermal underwear.

The county emergency management agency has not received any military-surplus items within the past five years, said Dennis O’Hara, EMA director.

Youngstown Police Chief Robin Lees said his department has about a dozen military-surplus assault rifles and some ballistic vests, but for the most part the department does not have a lot of military equipment.

The assault rifles are not carried by officers but are stored at the police department in case they are ever needed, Lees said.

Elberty, also a detective sergeant with Youngstown police, said the crisis response team obtained a BAE Caiman, a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle or MRAP. It was obtained through the Law Enforcement Support Office, and Boardman police also received a Caiman through the same office.

Austintown Detective Sgt. Shawn Hevener handles the military-surplus purchases for the township. He explained the Law Enforcement Support Office is sponsored by the DOD. “It’s a good source for law-enforcement agencies that want to save on their budget,” he said.

He added all agencies receiving equipment or vehicles from the LESO are required to maintain the parts, but can outfit them however they see fit. When departments no longer see a need with having something, they can put it back into the surplus system.

Both MRAPs are stored at a Boardman Township shed and neither has been outfitted for its intended use. The value of a Caiman is $737,000, and the sticker was still on one of the vehicles.

Elberty said both vehicles came by flatbed truck from Texas in April. He added, “We’re going to also kind of use it as a hardened bunker, command post and sit in there with negotiators and technical support.”

Boardman Police Chief Jack Nichols said the department plans to outfit the Caiman with emergency lights, seats to hold about 25 people and a new paint job, which will happen in the winter.

The new vehicle came at no cost.

Nichols said, “It was my understanding that if local law enforcement didn’t take them, they would just cut them up [and scrap them].”

The Caiman is much larger than Boardman’s black armored truck that was donated in 2011 by Brinks, a company known for transporting cash between banks.

The department also has six Humvees through the military surplus, which are primarily used for transporting equipment and people, such as officers going to a practice gun range. Nichols said officers usually go about three times a year.

Nichols said the MRAP would be used if there was an active-shooter scenario at a hospital, school or a shopping mall.

“This vehicle would put probably 25 people in the back of it and keep them safe. No bullets would be able to go through it,” Nichols said.

He did acknowledge the growing national concern over militarization of local police departments. “It’s nice to know it’s there, but I don’t foresee it being seen patrolling the streets of Boardman or anything. That’s not what it is for,” Nichols said.

“There’s really not a single negative about it — just the idea that it’s there and it can only help,” Nichols said.

Elberty said some people that have been involved with standoffs have told police once the vehicle moved out front, they decided to give up.

“When that moves in, they kind of say, ‘I think I’m done with this.’”

Elberty said the CRT also has a Humvee and a trailer. That Humvee can be used for going to off-road marijuana-growing operations to transport authorities there, Elberty said.

The Austintown Police Department obtained two Humvees, one for their department and another one for the fire department, through the LESO.

The Austintown Fire Department spent $9,000 to outfit a 1992 Humvee for its needs, and area businesses donated services and time to help keep costs down. It will be used for search-and-rescue operations and brush fires.

Austintown Fire Chief Andy Frost III said the department handles about 30 brush fires a year and an additional 10 calls for EMS and rescue calls off paved roads. The new Humvee replaces two Jeeps that the department has been using for decades — a 1964 Jeep that was purchased from the Howland Fire Department in the 1980s and a 1966 Jeep.

Frost said the cost could have been between $90,000 to $120,000. “We know we can’t afford to purchase new equipment, so we have to make this equipment last as long as possible,” he said.

Austintown police Capt. Bryan Kloss said the department’s vehicle is being used the same way as Boardman’s: to transport equipment to a range. Hevener said they have used the LESO for other equipment in the past, but now the only item from the military surplus is the Humvee.

Austintown police haven’t spent any money to outfit the vehicle.

“We’re not going to spend the money to paint it. We’re just going to use it as is, as far as I know,” Kloss said.

Contributor: Reporter Joe Gorman.


Comments

1bcdevellin(8 comments)posted 2 months ago

In my opinion its money that could have been spent to really help people in our area. This extra equipment seems a little overkill to me. I respect and appreciate all that our local law enforcement do, and feel safe as is.

Suggest removal:

2ufosd(17 comments)posted 2 months ago

This process may seem innocent enough at the moment, and with all of the gangs we hear of coming across our border at present may even justify it even more,. The process still has the look of something sinister and should we watched closely by those who are concerned about the movement away from constitutional governance. Since the Patriot Act we have noticed a large drift toward a heavy handed policing in our neighborhoods and country as a whole.

Suggest removal:

3Photoman(1005 comments)posted 2 months ago

It sure does seem innocent and wonderful, doesn't it? And it's all free!
But wait, doesn't everything we've ever gotten "for free" from our government always ultimately end up with government imposing demands upon us at a later date? Perhaps maybe just a "smidgen" of freedom?

Suggest removal:

4WarrenRicheyKid(167 comments)posted 2 months ago

The police need to get out of their patrol cars and walk a foot patrol. When they don't know the residents in the neighborhoods they patrol, they make all kinds of mistakes--some of them fatal. We really need to get back to the old foot beat patrols. We need Officer Friendly, not Officer Armageddon.

Suggest removal:

5YtownParent(331 comments)posted 2 months ago

The only problem with Police having and utilizing this equipment is accountability. That is easily solved by placing cameras and mics in every vehicle, but the police unions have fought against it. Until the cops willingly make their actions completely transparent, citizens can and should exercise their rights to record officers on their own cameras, cell phones, etc.

Suggest removal:

6thirtyninedollars(291 comments)posted 2 months ago

They aren't saving a thing off their budget because these are items that are not needed. Yet they spend the money on them anyway as if they are needed.
I can see them needing the m-16's and I like YPD's approach to it. There is no reason every car needs an assault rifle in it.
There is not one reason I can think of why any police force needs a MRAP. We aren't in a warzone and even back in the day the mob wasn't planting roadside bombs. Why do they need humvees for transporting items to the firing range? Seems like a waste of money to have a vehicle that only does that. All I see here is a bunch of excuses trying to reason why they spent the money on things police never should have access to.
PS: Boardman do you even have 25 officers to patrol your streets on the payroll?

Suggest removal:

7Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 2 months ago

What part of "free" don't you folks understand? Yeah, it might take a few bucks to paint and outfit these vehicles, but with the cost of a new cruiser, totally outfitted for patrol, closing in on $50K, getting a brand new $700,000 vehicle for free seems like a bargain to me! And I guarantee that all who oppose these programs have never supported a tax levy for Safety Forces, yet consistently vote FOR any and all government entitlement programs that give out free cell phones and EBT cards.

Suggest removal:

8YtownParent(331 comments)posted 2 months ago

What part of "is sponsored by the Department of Defense" don't you understand @Chessiedad? None of this equipment is "FREE". Taxpayers bought and paid for it all through Congress's military spending. Wait a minute, I'm wrong. We taxpayers didn't buy and pay for it, we borrowed money and put ourselves in debt to buy it for military purposes when we didn't need it. If the military had needed to purchase the stuff, it would be in use by the military not being given away and/or scrapped. It's just another bloated, wasteful government entitlement program. They only difference between it and EBT cards, Liar Care, etc. is who gets the goods.

Suggest removal:

9YtownParent(331 comments)posted 2 months ago

"If we borrowed money and put ourselves in debt. Then why not our local authorities put it to use in their departments?" Because it is against the law for the military to police our citizens. Lest you forget, we declared our independence form England and fought not one, but two wars against them (The American Revolution & The War of 1812) because we didn't want military actions taken against our populace. If local police want to skirt the law, then they are no different then any drug dealing gang-banger or terrorist despot.

Suggest removal:

10steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

Maybe we should take all guns out of the hands of the police, then we wouldn't have to worry about them shooting any criminals. The policemen could just yell stop to the criminals and then tackle them and subdue them. Then after the criminals were arrested, the police should apologize to them if they were hurt in he arrest process.

Suggest removal:

11thirtyninedollars(291 comments)posted 2 months ago

It isn't free because they need to "KIT" the vehicles out.
Which runs into thousands of dollars. They need insured etc etc etc. Nothing is free, besides it was funded by taxdollars, I don't see that being free; what don't you understand about that?
I see what the cops deal with everyday. Part of it is their attitude towards civilians. They don't want to be in the mud. They would rather ride around in their cars and point guns at people than walk and talk. They might get more respect.
Some of you folks are a trip, no one said anything about taking guns or resources away from cops.
They aren't the military either. If they want to act like it, than they should go join up again.

Suggest removal:

12steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

This whole thread is left wing extremists run amok. What in earth is wrong with the police having better equipment than the criminals.

Suggest removal:

13YtownParent(331 comments)posted 2 months ago

"don't call them when you're in trouble. Call a taxpayer instead". You hit the nail right on the head @tafy. The local police forces are made up of officers who do not live in the cities they police and are not paying taxes in those cities either. The whole point of calling the police is that you are calling a fellow taxpaying citizen of the community you live in. Not anymore.

Again. Police officers are not the military. They are civilians. Any officer who acts like a soldier is breaking the law and is just as worthless to society as any other criminal. If you don't like it then you can move to a police state like Russia or China where you'll be more happy.

Suggest removal:

14steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

Well, I would rather trust the police and have them armed to the teeth.

Suggest removal:

15YtownParent(331 comments)posted 2 months ago

"No trouble, no cops!" is overly simplifying it. But I'll give you the baseline of staying out of trouble means not breaking the law. The same goes for the police. If they don't want treated like criminals, then they shouldn't break the law like criminals.

Suggest removal:

16bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 2 months ago

Plenty of dictatorships and banana republic coups would love to have you serving in their ranks, then, jerk.

But when you give up the rest of your freedoms, don't forget they'll behead you for talking about their president like you do ours.

All you fraidy cats and your popo and guns. You'll choke on antacids before you need the help of an MRAP.

So much for small government you hypocrites...wasted
$700,000 is by no means free.

Suggest removal:

17bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 2 months ago

That wasn't aimed at you YTP. Sometimes the timing of comments posted on this site is way off....

Suggest removal:

18steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

A banana republic would be a vast improvement over the administration of this Liar.

Suggest removal:

19Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 2 months ago

I'm going to say it again, as I said before....all of the "anti-Police" persons, posting here need to volunteer with their local Police Chaplain Service, and accompany them when they are sent to inform the families and loved ones of an Officer killed in the line-of-duty, and after the Police Chaplain delivers the horrible news, go ahead and tell that grieving family that you don't believe that the Officer deserved any and all the protections available, be it better body armor, superior firepower, or even a "bullet and projectile resistant" vehicle that was made available for no cost to the Officers agency (and of course I know that the Federal Income taxes I pay, because I'm gainfully employed, unlike most of the people who are against the Federal Surplus Program, provided the monies for the purchase of the equipment). Hopefully the Police Chaplain will save your butt after you make that clear!

Suggest removal:

20YtownParent(331 comments)posted 2 months ago

No posting here is "anti-police". The post have all been anti-criminal. Some posters realize that a cop who breaks the law is a criminal.

As for any arguments that it is needed equipment for the officers protection, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's (www.nleomf.org) published reports, officer deaths have been steadily declining and deaths by shootings have fallen so much that cars killed more cops than guns. If you are sincerely concerned about the safety of officers@Chessiedad then cops should have cars that contain seatbelts & they should be required to use them. If you want to double or triple the fine for not moving over when and officer has another vehicle pulled over, I'm all for it. I'm not for cops using totalitarian tactics and you shouldn't be either because sooner or later you'll be the only one left to subdue.

As for your ride along idea, thankfully it's going to be a long wait until that opportunity arises. In Y-town, it has been 13 years since an officer was shot and killed in the line of duty. Of the 5 officers that were killed on duty in the past 50 years in Y-town 3 were by vehicles only 2 by guns. Outside of Youngstown, you have to go back to 1927 to find an officer killed by gunfire in Mahaoning county. All the others were by cars or health (aka heart attacks). By all means look at the YPD web page as well as the Officer Down page (odmp.org) and fact check me. Or just go along spewing the same hyperbole and propaganda that Stalin, Sadaam, Quadifi, et al. churned out to justify their tyranny.

Suggest removal:

21NBees(44 comments)posted 2 months ago

We are Americans... the psychological implications of military equipment to be used against Americans on American soil runs cross grain with everything America is supposed to be. Sure, some people may back down, give up when they see a show of military strength force. Others will be outraged, especially if military equipment is brought to events where Americans are exercising their constitutional rights of peaceful assembly and/or protest.

As for re-purposing military vehicles for off road search and rescue or to help fight brush fires, that is an excellent idea.

Suggest removal:

22steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

This is just so typical of the left wing extremists. Cut military spending and spend billions and billions of dollars on food stamps, welfare, Liar Care, and any other free handouts they can think of, yet as soon as we do something that is of benefit to the average taxpaying citizen like improving the police force, they are opposed.

Suggest removal:

23walter_sobchak(1922 comments)posted 2 months ago

This is all about extremes. We ask police officers to enforce the laws, arrest criminals, keep the streets safe AND return to their families safely at the end of their shift. As our "culture" has progressed over the years, the police have had to go from gangsters using pistols to organized gangs using weapons of war. It is absolutely necessary to resist a force with a greater force to prevail so we must provide law enforcement with the proper tools. It is quite possible that an MRAP could be necessary to quell a serious disturbance like in Ferguson, but these instances are not common in the US. If we can re-purpose it for use as a glorified ATV, it could make sense. Otherwise, wouldn't it be better for just one MRAP to be used on a county-wide basis and shared by the various law enforcement entities? Each police force can share the vehicle for training purposes but the unit could held by the sheriff. However, police work is best done on a community basis where the officers know their citizens, have contact with them, and use appropriate measures to enforce laws. Making the police force a quasi-military group is not very wise as it hints of military dictatorship. The power rests with the people and is given by them to the government. We are not to be lorded over!

Suggest removal:

24Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 2 months ago

@YtownParent: You must be reading some other article or posts if you don't think some of these posts aren't "anti-Police". And, take a look around, even if it's from the front seat of your "Model T", and you will find that since 1968 all U.S. auto mfrs. were required to install seatbelts, including those sold as cruisers. Furthermore, seatbelt use is required by 48 States, Police included. Also, I am happy that you are thankful that it has been quite some time since, locally there has not been an Officer killed by gunfire, but your facts about "no Officer outside of Youngstown killed by gunfire since 1927" is totally FALSE!!! On Nov. 6, 1983, Poland Twp. Officer Richard Becker was killed by gunfire, while on-duty, serving and protecting his community. I'll let his family know that you "conveniently" omitted the memory of his "ultimate sacrifice" to serve your "hyperbole and propaganda". Your "skewing" of the facts destroys any and all credibility you may have had, and I, for one will give no credence to any and all of your future postings, and suggest that others do the same. And, if you think trying to provide as much protective gear as possible, to those who protect us, 24/7, will lead to "tyranny", yet see no problem with the supposed leader of our Country using the agencies under his control to spy on us, target those of us who disagree with him for scrutiny by the IRS, force us to buy things we don't want or need, and trying to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights...those are things that are a lot closer to "tyrannical" actions, much like those imposed by "Stalin, Sadaam, Quadifi, et al.

Suggest removal:

25YtownParent(331 comments)posted 2 months ago

@Chessiedad. First, I apologize for overlooking Officer Richard Becker. It wasn't intentional, I just forgot Poland Twp. when checking data, as the site lists death by individual departments & not counties. I provided the specific means to be fact checked because I know I am only human & subject to making errors, whether leaving out a department or in my math. I gave you the tools to correct any mistakes I made, so my data was not skewed. Cops should be responsible & humble enough to admit their imperfections too, instead of acting infallible.

Second, you overlooked the sarcasm in seatbelt comments. It is the law & police officers are supposed to be wearing safety belts too, as well as not texting while driving.

Third. I never said I was ok with any President's, Congress's, or government agent's abuses. This discussion is about local police departments being outfitted & deployed in the same manner as a military platoon. But just to clarify, The Patriot Act was awful when Bush was President. I was against it then because his predecessors could/would just expand the abuse. Obama proved I was right. Regardless of who becomes the next President, you can bet they'll make Obama's abuses look like Bush's. All the other abuses are just as foul. Republicans haven't challenged them in court & stopped them in their tracks because they want to keep those powers for themselves. The Democrats never challenged Bush or Reagan for the same reason.

There is a giant difference between "protective gear" like body armor, helmets & shields and offense weapons like machine guns. I might be able to stomach it if every officer was honest and forthright, but that is not the case. Check out the stats on police misconduct (http://www.policemisconduct.net/stati...). Please by all means provide any additional data I might not have found. Cops are humans and they are subject to falling prey to greed and power trips just like the rest of us. Too many use that equipment for their own gain. Too many departments and citizens excuse or overlook illegal police activity. Giving bad cops free reign with no oversight places good honest cops lives in danger. Unfortunately, the Robert Lodwicks of the police forces are more prevalent than the Officer Hartzells.

Suggest removal:

26steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

If the criminals can have machine guns, why on earth should the police not have machine guns. Too many citizens overlook the criminals and blame the police for the actions of the criminals.

Suggest removal:

27steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

Here is an excerpt from Norco, California:
"The suspects pulled far ahead of the pursuing police officers and stopped to ambush them as they caught up. Officer James Evans, one of the first police units to come under attack during the ambush, was shot in the head and killed. The police, armed with only .38-caliber revolvers and 12-gauge shotguns, were out-gunned.
---
There was a guy arrested just recently in Youngstown with an AK-47. Why should he have an AK-47 and the police have just handguns?

Suggest removal:

28steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

COLLINSVILLE, Ala. — Federal and state agents arrested six men and seized an arsenal of homemade hand grenades and firearms in raids Thursday, including one that forced the shutdown of a school.

Agents recovered 130 hand grenades, a grenade launcher, about 70 hand grenades rigged to be fired from a rifle, a machine gun, a short-barrel shotgun, 2,500 rounds of ammunition, explosives components, stolen fireworks and other items, said Jim Cavanaugh, regional head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Suggest removal:

29Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 2 months ago

@steivo: I'm with you, bro, but let's face it, trying to make a valid point with the "Police-haters" here, is like "administering medicine to the dead". Especially when they make comments that claim "most Police Officers are sex-offenders". Yet, the first time their neighbor "makes a face at them", they're dialing 911 as fast as their fingers will let them. And God forbid, the responding Officer isn't pulling into their driveway, seconds after receiving the call, even though he or she is probably working on a Department that is seriously understaffed because the taxpayers prefer to support government "freebie" programs, than their Safety Forces. I guarantee that most of the posters, here, would never have the fortitude to consider a career in Law Enforcement, let alone willingly throw themselves into an "unknown trouble" or "weapons involved" or "shots fired" call for service. Put them into situations like that, where some deranged person, hell-bent on self-destruction, is firing at them, indiscriminately, and they'd be crying like "little schoolgirls", begging for some heavy armor protection!

Suggest removal:

30bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 2 months ago

Chessiedad-

You sure know a lot about strangers you don't agree with.

Your posts are based on assumptions and fallacious arguments that have basis in emotion and not fact.

You attack posters rather than their statements.

I have seen the likes of you and have empathy for your struggles. But I won't continue discussion with you because you are obviously very personally attached to this matter and are unable to consider points of view objectively.

And I don't deserve your personal attacks. They are unfounded and suggestive of mental infancy.

Suggest removal:

31Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 2 months ago

bunkpatrol-

I know a lot about human nature, having seen mankind at it's best, helping others at great cost to their personal safety and well-being, and I've seen it at it's worst, committing unspeakable atrocities on another human being, that sometimes keeps me up at night. So yes, I think I do know a lot about "strangers" and sometimes I do "disagree" with them

And yes, I do get "emotional" when someone has the audacity to make salacious remarks, like "most Police Officers are sex offenders", and that's a "fact".

So, no need to have "empathy" for me. I got my "big boy pants" on and can handle anything thrown my way, but thanks for the thought. And I believe I am being "objective", but one thing I will freely admit to NOT being is "politically correct". I "call it like I see it", and it's up to you to decide whether or not you want to give my points of view any consideration.

Lastly, you deserved to be "called out" for one of your posts concerning the unrest in Ferguson, MO, where you tried to "fan the flames" of racial unrest by FALSELY posting that "another unarmed man was shot by the Police", after the Michael Brown incident, when in fact it was not an "Officer-involved" shooting. As far as I'm concerned, you are cut from the same cloth as those "race-baiters", Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, when you do something like that!

Suggest removal:

32bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 2 months ago

Funny that you are the one who brings race into the scenario and then categorize me as a race baiter.

Your agenda, not mine.

Michael Brown shooting not "officer involved" ?
Whatever-I give up.

I get your point. All cops good. Criminals guilty until proven innocent. Tanks for Mayberry. Fear black people. Villainize anyone who disagrees.

Suggest removal:

33Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 2 months ago

bunkpatrol-

Your post from 08/17/14 @ 12:33 pm:

"Except the facts show it was an unarmed man yet again shot by the poor defenseless underpaid policemen who responded to protest with excessive force!"

Somewhat "ambiguous", when there was another shooting, during the "protest", subsequent to the Brown incident, that was not "Officer-involved". Hence the confusion caused by your statement.

And, most Police Officers are "good", and given the intensive background investigations that most Law Enforcement agencies subject their applicants to, the likes of which the current POTUS wouldn't be able to pass, due to his admitted drug use, I'm comfortable making that statement. But I understand your animosity towards the Police for "wasting your time", since you make it abundantly clear that your "self-importance" supersedes the law.

Criminals are "guilty", or they wouldn't be "criminals", some have just not been successfully prosecuted. "Innocent" people are just that, "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Are the looters that burglarized the stores in MO "criminals", even though they have yet to be arrested and prosecuted? I think any person of normal and common sensibility would say they are.

And nobody is talking about "tanks" for local L.E. A "tank" is generally a "track-driven" vehicle with mounted canon or howitzers. The vehicles obtained through the Federal Surplus program do not come, fashioned as such.

Talk about "mental infancy".

Suggest removal:

34steivo(540 comments)posted 2 months ago

If their was a levy on the ballot to fund MRAP's for the police department with a rotating turret with .50 caliber machine gun. I would vote for it and actively support the levy.

Suggest removal:

35bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Live by the gun, die by the gun.

Suggest removal:

36steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

"Live by the gun, die by the gun." That is exactly what we are doing in Youngstown right now. We need to stop worrying about the rights of criminals and put them all in prison.

Suggest removal:

37bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

No-it's exactly what you are asking for by bringing the big military issue stuff to town.

You want Ferguson here ? Careful what you wish for because it's the same thing you're b*tching about.

Suggest removal:

38thirtyninedollars(291 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Not every criminal carries an automatic rifle, so why should every cop have access to that firepower? Especially considering how easily they go for the deadly force option. So they can terrorize normal citizens, beat the snot out of them and shoot them?
Than blame it on the suspect.
No that would never happen!

Suggest removal:

39steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

No. Its exactly what we already have here. What we need is for the police to squash the rebellion and put each and every criminal in prison for a long time. And yes, the police should have overwhelming force including tanks if necessary.

Suggest removal:

40bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" . BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

Suggest removal:

41Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Recent stats show that out of nearly 14,000,000 arrests made in a year, only about 400 resulted in death. That's a total figure of 0.000029 per arrest. Yes, one would hope that the figure would be "zero" per arrest, and I'm sure that with the advances of "less-than-lethal" technologies becoming available, it eventually will decline. But you will always have a segment of society that will prey on the innocent, and use any methods to escape or avoid capture, resulting in the use of "deadly force" by the Police, to prevent further harm to the public. And for those who are "terrorized" by the Police, my recommendation is to avoid any and all interaction with them, and the best way I can think of doing this, might be.....DON'T COMMIT ANY CRIMES!!! Don't speed, drink and drive, break into your neighbors house, shoplift, beat up your spouse, buy and use illicit drugs, or sell them, murder someone, assault someone, riot and loot, join a criminal "street gang" or other illegal enterprise, and I'm pretty sure the Police won't "terrorize" you. And FreedomTruth, I know you like your "cannabis", but dude, you gotta put down the pipe for a sec, 'cause "looking like a tank" and being a "tank" is like saying you're "just a little pregnant"! And I don't know about you, but I hope that my local Law Enforcement agency is hiring the "smartest" people they can find!

Suggest removal:

42steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

If there is a riot or looting on my street, I will call the police and I hope they arrive in a tank or MRAP with automatic weapons. I don't care if there is some counter-culture out there who blames the police for their bad behavior, just take them off to prison. They will have plenty of time in prison to blame the system for their personal failures.

Suggest removal:

43steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

My definition of a rebellion is when people use flimsy excuses to burn and loot to take goods that don't belong to them.

Suggest removal:

44thinkthentalk(263 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

Mr Wrench. The answer is that when conservatives get something for nothing from the "bad ol" government, according to the Fox network, that is ok. You see, its ok for conservatives to use flimsy excuses to rebel and take what they want and not pay for it.

Remember when the BLM rangers were on that bridge facing down the out-numbering, out-gunning conservative militia? Thats ok. That was the prime example of big-ol government overreach. The big ol' govt shouldnt be enforcing the law there.

Could you imagine if mean ol' executive powers HUSSEIN ordered the BLM to roll up in MRAPs wearing the camo military uniforms. Hannity and Rushbo would have a field day!

Suggest removal:

45steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

I fully support "stop and frisk" procedures and DUI checkpoints and I feel their use should be increased dramatically. I don't care if there is some counter-culture out there who blames the police for their bad behavior, just take them off to prison. They will have plenty of time in prison to blame the system for their personal failures. And I certainly have no interest at all in the counter-cultures interpretation of the constitution.f

Suggest removal:

46steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago

I have already explained to you that I don't care about your counter-culture's interpretation of the constitution.

Suggest removal:

47steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

There is at least two interpretations of the constitution, because I don't agree with yours

Suggest removal:

48Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

How much more "hypocritical" can you get, protesting the local L.E. agencies use of OVI checkpoints, and "stop and frisk" tactics, both which have caused reductions in OVI offenses and other criminal activities, but not a word, a cry "foul", a peep or other castigation of the Feds spying on us, targeting those who disagree with IRS investigations, "telling us" what health insurance we must buy, etc. Now explain to me who the "fascist" or "tyrant" is? "Seems like plain English, to me"!

Suggest removal:

49steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

If the police stop me and want to frisk me, I have no problem at all with it. If I get stopped at an OVI checkpoint, I have no problem at all with it. I will not blame the police for doing their job and I won't leave the experience with any permanent lifetime emotional scars, nor will I attempt to claim any imaginary constitutional rights to prevent it.

Suggest removal:

50dmo8723(2 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

a lot of fools in here.Father God only judges right or wrong not all that other bs you all talking about.whats right is that what city other than Chicago needs a fleet of military Humvees and a stock pile of weapons. and you say if you're not a criminal you should'nt be worried. that's a damn lie but it might start that way.when in U.S history has every policeman needed a m16 crime is dropping everywhere even in Youngstown.Every cop will say pull out the m16 when the criminals where teens with bb guns. Please don't act so innocent if there is someone who has not forgotten to wear their seatbelt,ran a light, speed every day to work let me know. I do know that most of us have committed a crime so the next time the police are looking for a white male or white female suspect and your kid fits the description but when the police approach them they have on head phones and they reach and their pocket for their cellphone and are killed then you will realize every murder victim or prison inmate that lost their life at the hands of police aren't criminals.My grandmother is the biggest Christian I know crime free and she really lives the word but hey every time the police gets behind her she gets nervous and checks for her seatbelt because she had friends killed and assaulted by police without any consequences. Oh and since im dealing with a whole lot of republicans i'll even bash Obama so you can get the point. It seems that some of you would love all police essentially become militarized well it just so happens Obama was involved in a U.N agreement to enforce a ban on certain guns, so militarizing the police force would be a great thing if you plan to take guns because except for these law abiding citizens who would give up guns certainly not the criminals. And ill post 10 links here real fast to show you how your good ole government voted on this bill already and even democrats voted against it did you know that straight and narrows.

Suggest removal:

51dmo8723(2 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

1.FactCheck.org-Obama's gun ban

2.www.newsmax.com/US/Norris-Obama-guns-NRA
3 obamas real reason he wants your guns-top documentary films
4.http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp
5.http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

Suggest removal:

52Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

@dmo8723 -

A little tip: activate the "grammar and spell check" key on your device..it might make it a little easier to get your point across.

Also, other than possibly looking "scary", a "Humvee" is nothing more than an "extreme" off-road capable vehicle. If the Police agencies that are fortunate enough to acquire some of these put some "spinner rims" or "low-rider hydraulics" on them, would that make you or your grandmother feel more comfortable, when you see them? And, although I don't know for sure, I think it's a safe bet that the young man recently killed in the gang war on the south side of Y-town, wasn't shot with a "bb gun".

I can't speak for everyone, here, but as far as I'm concerned, if it turned out that big, fluffy marshmallow suits, like what the "Stay Puft Marshmallow Man" used to wear, would protect the men and women in blue, who protect us 24/7, then I'd be "all in" for them having access to those. Unfortunately, protective gear and armor look "military-like", but if it protects our Officers, who would be against that? Unless you had some deep-seated animosity against someone who is willing to put their life on the line, for us, and wanted to see them injured or killed in the line-of-duty. It really galls me, when most of the "anti-Police" posters are the same ones who can't dial 911 fast enough, when the "boogeyman" comes "a knocking" or things go "bump in the night", yet they expect the responding Officers to come protect them, without the best equipment available, to do that job.

Suggest removal:

53bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

While we're attacking grammar and spelling, perhaps you'll educate yourself on the appropriate use of "quotations".

High speed chases, shootouts, riot gear and tear gas. Often these angelic policemen's best intentions fly in the face of "public safety".

Suggest removal:

54bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Don't believe that's my position at all. In fact, that's the fallible slippery slope argument put in place of my argument of sound logic.

I have no problem with the police pursuing or apprehending. I have a problem with you all justifying the killing of a supposed robber. And the killing of said robber prior to any kind of trial. And then the brutal show of force used against those who protested such lack of justice. And the continued justification of the militarization of such brutal fascism due to racism and fear.

The $737,000 Caiman is nothing more than big gov't waste and customizing it is throwing good money at bad. I have a huge issue with all of you hypocrites who can justify this as free and necessary while screaming of the evils of entitlement and big government.

Suggest removal:

55Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Careful, L0L...you might get "schooled" on your "use" of "quotation marks," especially when you refer to "public safety!" And save your breath, when trying to apply common sense to any dialogue you may have with the "anti-Police" posters. Their animosity towards Law Enforcement, for having been stopped or detained for some legal reason, clouds their ability to be objective about anything that has to do with modern-day Policing.

Oh, and lest I forget to mention how "public safety" was so overwhelmingly apparent during the recent riots in MO. Why, those looters and thieves were just so calm and courteous when they were breaking into those businesses, especially the ones with the handguns, who were shooting out the windows of the businesses, to gain access to the same. Darn those Policemen for having the audacity to respond to such a "peaceful protest", with riot gear and tear gas! Hopefully the next time one of the "anti-Police" types need the Police, they'll show up with "nerf" bats and "squirt guns" to save their sorry butts!

Suggest removal:

56Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Careful, L0L...you might get "schooled" on your "use" of "quotation marks," especially when you refer to "public safety!" And save your breath, when trying to apply common sense to any dialogue you may have with the "anti-Police" posters. Their animosity towards Law Enforcement, for having been stopped or detained for some legal reason, clouds their ability to be objective about anything that has to do with modern-day Policing.

Oh, and lest I forget to mention how "public safety" was so overwhelmingly apparent during the recent riots in MO. Why, those looters and thieves were just so calm and courteous when they were breaking into those businesses, especially the ones with the handguns, who were shooting out the windows of the businesses, to gain access to the same. Darn those Policemen for having the audacity to respond to such a "peaceful protest", with riot gear and tear gas! Hopefully the next time one of the "anti-Police" types need the Police, they'll show up with "nerf" bats and "squirt guns" to save their sorry butts!

Suggest removal:

57steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

And that Darren Wilson was placing his face in the exact location that Brown wanted to swing his fists.

Suggest removal:

58DACOUNTRYBOY(238 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

TRUMP and I aint talkin bout Donald! Today's criminal rights "TRUMP" those of law enforcement. They get huge rewards after clashing with law enforcement paid for by the taxes of those that they continue to victimize. Can you say war zone?

Suggest removal:

59YtownParent(331 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Been too busy at work to do more than read the past week. I hope you don't get too emotional @Chessiedad, but nobody said " most Police Officers are sex offenders". After laying out the statistics of cops who are convicted of crimes and cops who are killed in the line of duty and where you can fact check stats, what I said, was: "Unfortunately, the Robert Lodwicks of the police forces are more prevalent than the Officer Hartzells." It is a statistical fact that more cops are convicted of crimes against the public than are killed by the public.

Again, that is officers who are "convicted", not officers who are complained about, not disciplined, not fired nor sued, but investigated by their law enforcement brothers, indited, tried and found guilty.
Both are ugly stats that in a perfect world would be zero. It is unfortunate that there are more convicted criminals than fallen officers.The only fortunate part of those stats is that combined they are only a microscopic percentage of police forces. Thankfully, most cops are not killed and most cops don't commit crimes. Those are the cops we should care about. Those are the cops you should get emotional about and vigorously question how department actions and policies help them.

Militarizing the police force doesn't help the large percent of cops who do their best for the communities they work in. It makes them more of a target, not just for criminals but everyday law abiding citizens. If criminals deserve to be treated like that, then all criminals deserve to be treated like that, including those in uniform. Yes, there are criminal cops. And no, I don't mean cops who make bad judgement calls or who are involved in shootings. Bad bad judgement calls and officer involved shootings usually don't end up in convictions. Yeah, I'm emotional about it because criminals cops endanger the lives of law abiding officers like my friends and neighbors.

Militarization has pragmatic drawbacks too. Police departments are surgical instruments designed to remove a specific threat without endangering the community. Military units are blunt instruments like chemotherapy that are designed to eradicate a whole area. The M16 is the perfect example. Rifles and hand guns are made to take out a single perp at a time. Automatic weapons were made to flood a whole area and take out as many targets as possible. Would you really want cops opening up fire on a school, movie, mall, etc shooter with automatic weapons & raining bullets down in a area where your children are? Or would you rather a marksman carefully setup a shot and take out a shooter only? If you are okay with the cops using weapons of war & literally waging war, then don't complain when someone you love becomes collateral damage.

Suggest removal:

60thirtyninedollars(291 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Bottom Line; everyone I have spoken with agrees the law shouldn't have military hardware. Everyone else arguing for has been brainwashed by the fear. Or they work for the law and don't want their toys taken away from them. Most suffer from e-penis envy anyway.

Suggest removal:

61steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Most that I have talked to have no problems with the police having military hardware and think that it is totally bizarre that some are saying the police are the bad guys and the bad guys are the good guys. If someone can't live according to the law, they need to go to prison to think about the error of their ways.

Suggest removal:

62SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

"Militarization has pragmatic drawbacks too. Police departments are surgical instruments designed to remove a specific threat without endangering the community......."

Very well said

Suggest removal:

63Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

@YtownParent -

You can try and quantify your statement about the comparison of a sick bastard like Lodwick, to the memory of one of our fallen Heroes, Officer Hartzell, but I for one, take that as an affront to the honor and ultimate sacrifice that Officer Hartzell made, for us. I guess I can see how you were trying to make your point, but certainly a poor choice to invoke the memory of Officer Hartzell in comparison to the stain that Lodwick was, and is. It's insensitive people like you, who reduce the tragedies, like the loss of Officer Michael Hartzell, and all of the other Law Enforcement and Military deaths in the line-of-duty, to mere "statistics". Furthermore, this is only a guess, but I'm hoping your statement, "it is unfortunate that there are more convicted criminals than fallen officers," is a miscue, based an a further statement where you write, "Thankfully, most cops are not killed...," but given your obvious displeasure with Police, it's easy to assume the former, rather than the latter.

As far as "full-auto" actions on the weapons used by local Police agencies, I can say with some certainty that using those weapons in such a manner is more than likely prohibited by policy of those agencies that employ them. A "Military-issue, M-16 carbine" has a "select-fire" switch, which allows the Soldier or Officer to put the firearm in a "safe" condition, "semi-auto" condition, "three-round burst" condition, or in some older models, a "full-auto" condition. Using those weapons in either of the "automatic" modes is prohibited by most local Police agencies. A common issued "long gun" for most Police agencies is a "M-4" style, semi-automatic carbine, which have been proven to be safer, and more accurate than the short-barreled shotguns that have traditionally been equipped in almost every Police cruiser for almost a century, with no one crying "foul." And these shotguns are usually loaded with 12ga., 00 buck shotgun shells, with each shell loaded with at least 9 pellets. So, one round, fired from the "trusty" old shotgun, immediately puts 9 pellets down range, vs. the one .223 round fired in "semi-auto" mode from the carbine. My point is, although the shotgun still has it's place in some applications for modern-day Policing, the "semi-auto" carbine is a much safer, more accurate firearm. Having said all of that, the current costs of these modern-day weapons can run in the thousands of dollars, so if a Police agency can acquire the same style weapon, for free, and restrict their use appropriately, it's a "win/win" for all.

Suggest removal:

64steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Chessie,
Very well said.

Suggest removal:

65YtownParent(331 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

I'm not saying the bad guys are the good guys. What is bizarre is that so many argue that a badge magically makes a human being infallible and unable to commit crimes. So I guess Girard had better give Larry Neely his job back because it isn't a crime if a cop lets their underage child have parties and serve alcohol to other minors. Wonder what would happen if you did that Chessie. Warren had better give Rueben Shaw his job back too, because a cop taking someone else's car out of a locked garage isn't a crime.

Let's not forget Ray Greenwood, whose largest crime is lying not once or twice, but on four occasions to investigators. He's a cop so it's okay for him to commit perjury because he's gotta keep himself safe. Greenwood is the perfect example of how civil rights violations in the name of officer safety can become outright criminal behavior to save ones job. How many of the criminals Greenwood put away will soon be out and eligible to sue the taxpayers of Struthers because any testimony Greenwood ever gave & every shred of evidence he collected is now tainted by his perjury & has to be thrown out.

So my question for all the shoot first and ask questions later crowd is do you apply those same standards to everyone breaking the law? Do all those breaking the law deserve no civil rights. Does that apply to everyone breaking the law? Even cops? By your logic those former cops should have just been shot out right because they have guns and the police need to protect themselves from criminals with weapons.

Suggest removal:

66YtownParent(331 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

As for using Lodwick and Hartzell's name in the same sentence, they associated themselves with each other when they both put on the uniform. The Commanding officers and internal affairs morons that excused Lodwick's behavior with all the same rhetoric being used here to absolve all cops of whatever actions they take in uniform stained the memory of my friends on the force, including Mike Hartzell, who I know for a fact complained about Lodwick's conduct and attitude.

It's unfortunate that more cops die as criminals than heroes because those criminals in uniform stain every other officer who ever served. Giving cops more power (and power always corrupts) will only make the stain larger and darker.

Suggest removal:

67steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Chessie,
Ok do you understand that. The criminals are just misunderstood guys that are having their civil rights violated. The police are the bad guys that deserve to be thrown in prison.

Suggest removal:

68SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

A dedicated community servant deserves courtesy and respect from other members of that community; someone who tells me to “just do what I tell you” doesn’t see me as a fellow citizen but a subject.

"Just do what I tell you", - sounds like phrase from East Berlin..

Suggest removal:

69bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

From what I've learned in the comments here, you must hate ALL cops and love ALL criminals, SheDevil.

Commenters exaggerate your argument and then attack the misrepresentation.

That is because they are ignorant and incapable of producing a sound logical argument on their own.

Too bad the pundits they parrot can't be there to tell them the correct soundbites to utter when challenged by sound logical statements of fact.

Laughable-except the most powerless are manipulated to scream the loudest. Grumpy white entitled old men losing their grip. Or cops afraid of losing their toys, stooping to the level of defending bad cops.

So the argument devolves to name calling and messenger killing. Pathetic.

Suggest removal:

70SheDevil(120 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

@bunk
Inane rant

Suggest removal:

71Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

I'm a little lost, here. I re-read all of the posts in this thread, and unless I missed something, I can't find one statement from anyone, either "pro-Police" or "anti-Police", defending any "bad cops." And, when you take away equipment that helps a Police Officer protect the community he or she serves, as well as themselves, then we all lose. God help you and your loved ones if your neighborhood ever has an "active shooter" on the loose, and you need to evacuate. You'll be begging the Police to come get you in one of those "Caimans" or "armored-up" Humvees you hate so much.

Suggest removal:

72bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

Well then I guess you've "earned" my "respect" and I can "trust" you "blindly" because you don't "seem" to have a "horse" in this "race".

Civil disobedience founded this country.

Fascist militarization fueled by fear and greed will be it's end.

Suggest removal:

73YtownParent(331 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

"God help you and your loved ones if your neighborhood ever has an "active shooter" on the loose, and you need to evacuate. You'll be begging the Police to come get you in one of those "Caimans" or "armored-up" Humvees you hate so much." I don't think so. An active shooter in my neighborhood wouldn't be done firing before anyone dialed 911. Then the police would take me or one of my neighbors to jail & charge us with murder for eliminating the threat because they didn't get to play with their toys.

Suggest removal:

74Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

So, YtownParent, you're advocating "vigilante justice?"...You whine about "denying civil rights" to those breaking the law, yet brag that in your neighborhood you'll "take the law into your own hands." Talk about the "height of hypocrisy!" Is it just me, or do your contradictions lessen the validity and credibility of your comments? Or is it that you just hate the Police so badly, that your anger and animosity towards them cause you to muddle your ability to make a cognizant, consistent point?

Suggest removal:

75steivo(540 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

I think it is the latter.

Suggest removal:

76YtownParent(331 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

No, I am not advocating vigilante justice". I am advocating self-defense of your own life and/or the life of someone else. You made the statement "God help you and your loved ones if your neighborhood ever has an "active shooter" on the loose, and you need to evacuate. You'll be begging the Police to come get you in one of those "Caimans" or "armored-up" Humvees you hate so much. An active shooter is a whole lot different than a junkie or gang-banger walking down the street casing houses. An active shooter is someone who is "actively" pulling the trigger and sending bullets wizzing around. The law says anyone has a right to take that shooter out in defense of themselves or anyone else.

Are you really saying that if an active shooter is roaming your neighborhood firing bullets that could come through a window and hit you or a family member, you wouldn't stop the shooter if you had the means to do so? Are you telling me you'd want all your neighbors to let the shooter room around the neighborhood until the cops showed up? Even two minutes with a semi-auto weapon in a residential area would be enough for any novice psychopath to kill dozens.

Taking out an active shooter is self-defense. Grabbing a weapon and running after someone who looks like a junkie casing houses and shooting them is vigilante justice. Yes, I advocate an armed populace that will protect each other.

You'll probably have a hard complexity, so you'll call it a contradiction, when it's not. While I don't agree that police should be armed and operating like military units (mostly because police departments don't have the same discipline as military units), I do believe they have the same right to protect themselves as anyone else. I do think the police violated civil rights and were out of line in their response to protests in Ferguson, but I think the initial shooting of Brown was self-defense.

Suggest removal:

77Chessiedad(234 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

I'm with you on your 2nd Amendment posture, and I commend you for your willingness to use "deadly force" to protect you, your family or your neighbors. And God forbid you ever have to do that, then yes, you may be taken into custody until a Prosecutor or Grand Jury hears the facts of the case and decides your actions were "justifiable." Also, as long as you aren't a "flight risk", I would think a reasonable Judge would allow a release from custody on your own recognizance, until such time as the matter is adjudicated.

One or two "junkies" or "gangbangers", looking to commit a burglary, should not elicit a response from Law Enforcement, with riot gear and armored-up vehicles. However, a thousand looters, some who are armed with firearms (as shown in the security video of the young man shooting out the glass doors of a business, to gain entry) should require a response from the Police, "in force", as was the case in MO. I have no problem with assembling, marching and protesting in a peaceful manner. And if a participant or the group, as a whole, disagrees with a Police order to disperse, for whatever reason, then find an attorney (I'm sure the crowd of attorneys, lining up to take a case of that notoriety, would outnumber the protesters) and have them file a writ with the court to allow them to proceed. With that in hand, and as long as the protest remained civil, you wouldn't have had the anarchy that erupted in Ferguson. So "the Police were out of line" and "violated civil rights" in Ferguson, I'm just not seeing it, but if someone who was there, feels like that, then they have every right to file an action with the court and see how it plays out.

So, all in all, I see we agree on some points (especially the 2nd Amendment stuff) and disagree on some, but overall, I'm happy to learn that you are a "law and order" type (even for the Police, when they step out of line) and you believe that, flawed as it is, at times, our system of justice is better than most.

Suggest removal:

78andersonathan(669 comments)posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago

I guess this makes up for funding the Muslim Brotherhood and leaving weapons behind for ISIS. But you could go to Wal Mart and buy what you need to disable one of these and Home Depot if you want to stop it in it's tracks.

Not worried that the Police have one or more of these the day will come when they need one. I just hope their on the right side when it all comes down.

Texas is on high alert right now for boarder terrorism ISIS will be ganging up with the cartels drugs and money will fuel it, The number one name in England of newborns is Mohammad. Muslims are taking Hispanic names for their children [look it up] Sweden Norway Netherlands Germany France and most of Europe has given in to Islam allowing them to start taking control of places in government, military. And that will be the real fight it is all over religion. And if you do not think Islam is a national threat to our way of life in America then keep your blinders on and get out of the way of those who do.

Suggest removal:

79bunkpatrol(90 comments)posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago

http://news.yahoo.com/how-does-a-poli...

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport