For those of you who wish to view the original article:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/off-duty-cops-witnessed-alleged-suv-driver-beating/story?id=20488628
Well, folks. Looks like this is another case of violence. They just keep piling up. And what's surprising is our law enforcement is slacking.
If you have no prior knowledge of the facts behind the article, I will briefly sum it up. A man named Lien was driving--with his wife and infant--in his black Range Rover when it appeared a motorcycle gang was swarming him. One motorcyclist collided in a "fenderbender" with the black SUV and eventually, the car slowed down. Another motorcyclist tried to open the driver's door and Lien shot forward, running over one of the motorcyclists. The motorcycle gang pursued Lien to a crowded street, took him out and beat him up. Two passer-by ran up and acted as shields for Lien and the beatings stopped. Both Lien and the run-over motorcyclist are in the hospital.
Now, in this article, it appears there were cops on the scene, off-duty and undercover. They did not get involved in any way to stop the attack on Lien. I understand that maybe the undercover cop had to maintain his cover, but there were off-duty cops on the scene! They should have tried to do something! Just because they are not actively working does not take away the fact that they are cops! Letting this man get attacked as retribution for their hurt friend is not the right thing to do. This is reverting back to "mob rule" where we lynch citizens for an accident. I don't think Lien was too hasty in trying to escape the situation in which it appears he and his family are in danger.
Think about it: if you were on the road and several bikes are boxing you in, what would your first impression be? It wouldn't just be something to disregard. It's a safety hazard! And why would these people be boxing you in in the first place?
Additionally, aren't cops supposed to preserve the peace and to stop people from mangling others in the streets?
Disregarding my personal bias for a moment, a few unanswered questions arise. What are the bikers' impressions on the affair? What are the off-duty cops' opinions? Was it the motorcyclist who opened the driver's door the one responsible for Lien's mad getaway? The article was definitely biased towards Lien and some of these questions were unanswered as a result.
Is this a sign of poor police-officer conduct to come?
Monday, October 7, 2013
A Police State in the Works: The Militarization of the Police Force
It seems to hold true that in the United States we value our police in a biased manner. We want them to be around if any sort of trouble may occur, yet we don't want them to constrict our freedom in such a way that these dutiful servants of the state may turn upon us. The fear of a police state has always been one to frighten the firm believers of liberty, yet once again the government has hidden the continuous militarization of police forces around the country.
The Article on the Guardian
With 4.2 billion dollars in total spent upon military weapons for programs such as SWAT or other Special Force Units, one starts to wonder whether such a maneuver could have possibly been smoother? Once again the funds of this great nation turn towards the military, with massive funding to programs such as CIA, FBI, and NSA that may just add a bit of crippling debt to our already expired debt ceiling. Why do we need this much money to be put into our defense systems? I don't think we are under attack on U.S. soil, and of course one can justify the spending for events such as the Boston Marathon Bombing, but as the article stated this is not only for large cities such as Los Angeles or Boston, but rather small towns as well. In what possible situation may they need high grade military weapons such as a tank within their personnel? I doubt these armored vehicles will come into use any time soon, or the massive amounts of assault weapons that are "lost" or "lent" in the mix. And yes, lost is apparently the case for a district in Indiana that lost a majority of their supplies. But wait, there's more! Once again, the big shocker reappears: our taxes are being spent upon this program! I guess what I meant by "smooth" in the beginning of this paragraph is how the government as usual kept this one on the down low.
But what I'm really trying to get to is this whole idea of militarization. As I look with disappointment upon the millions of Americans who have traded in their security for privacy and not done anything about it, I start to ask myself: is there more?
Yes. Of course there is. I don't want to be labelled a traitor to this country, for there is some good left, but the United States has never entirely been "the good guy". With a disgruntled population, an exceeding debt ceiling, and even the collapse of our government, one may ask, "will the population ever rebel?" Well no, because things such as the government collapse make us forget about issues such as the NSA, military activity outside of the United States, and this type of funding. If there was an uprising, the government is prepared, and we may enter into a whole new world where our rights and liberties could be just be words written on paper. Sure, it probably wont happen, and I may be insane for assuming so, but could it be so that the United States is just preparing for something? We would be trapped and threatened, and the police force would have the ability to shut us down.
I cannot comprehend why our police forces need such militias. As our founding fathers decided, our military shall stay separate from the police, but for some reason this line has been crossed. Who will the police serve in the end if say something were to occur? The people, or the military?
.
The Article on the Guardian
With 4.2 billion dollars in total spent upon military weapons for programs such as SWAT or other Special Force Units, one starts to wonder whether such a maneuver could have possibly been smoother? Once again the funds of this great nation turn towards the military, with massive funding to programs such as CIA, FBI, and NSA that may just add a bit of crippling debt to our already expired debt ceiling. Why do we need this much money to be put into our defense systems? I don't think we are under attack on U.S. soil, and of course one can justify the spending for events such as the Boston Marathon Bombing, but as the article stated this is not only for large cities such as Los Angeles or Boston, but rather small towns as well. In what possible situation may they need high grade military weapons such as a tank within their personnel? I doubt these armored vehicles will come into use any time soon, or the massive amounts of assault weapons that are "lost" or "lent" in the mix. And yes, lost is apparently the case for a district in Indiana that lost a majority of their supplies. But wait, there's more! Once again, the big shocker reappears: our taxes are being spent upon this program! I guess what I meant by "smooth" in the beginning of this paragraph is how the government as usual kept this one on the down low.
But what I'm really trying to get to is this whole idea of militarization. As I look with disappointment upon the millions of Americans who have traded in their security for privacy and not done anything about it, I start to ask myself: is there more?
Yes. Of course there is. I don't want to be labelled a traitor to this country, for there is some good left, but the United States has never entirely been "the good guy". With a disgruntled population, an exceeding debt ceiling, and even the collapse of our government, one may ask, "will the population ever rebel?" Well no, because things such as the government collapse make us forget about issues such as the NSA, military activity outside of the United States, and this type of funding. If there was an uprising, the government is prepared, and we may enter into a whole new world where our rights and liberties could be just be words written on paper. Sure, it probably wont happen, and I may be insane for assuming so, but could it be so that the United States is just preparing for something? We would be trapped and threatened, and the police force would have the ability to shut us down.
I cannot comprehend why our police forces need such militias. As our founding fathers decided, our military shall stay separate from the police, but for some reason this line has been crossed. Who will the police serve in the end if say something were to occur? The people, or the military?
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)