This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What are some unforeseen outcomes of conditioning our children to live in a police state?
What are some unforeseen outcomes of conditioning our children to live in a police state?
Are we really protecting them? My own observations in concert with one law enforcement officer's view in the wake of Oslo.
POLICE STATE: a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police, and especially secret police, in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police%20state
I recently attended a high-school age swimming meet here in Texas. When we entered the front doors, at 7:30 am, there sat two volunteer parents at a table selling programs and tickets. Standing less than three feet behind them were two law enforcement officers with hands on hips and eyeing everyone that entered. It would be 100 degrees outside that day, but they were wearing combat boots, black BDUs, tactical armor in external carriers, pistols, and radios. The uniform patches and logos on their two brand new black Challengers, illegally parked just outside, identified them as XXXXXX Independent School District Police.
The kids all filed right by these police officers without even a second glance. Why would they think twice? After all, these kids are all hard working (swimming twice a day, six days per week, for 2+ hours) and drug free (high school athletes in Texas must agree to random drug tests to participate). They have nothing to fear from the police, which are there to serve and protect them.
When I asked my child about my observation, he explained how the police at his school are, "always around." He has become accustomed to their presence.
I explained that back in the 80's, when I was in high school, we had a Cancer Hill on campus where the kids went to smoke, and I don't think I ever saw a police officer set foot on our campus in three years. "Really?" he asked me. "Really," I said.
"Why do you think the police are always present now in school and at swim meets?" I asked. His reply was that he sees them pulling kids out of class almost every day, obtaining consent (LEOs receive extensive training on this), then walking out to the parking lot to search the child's vehicle, or down the hall to search the child's locker and backpack. I asked him if students always gave consent? He said they do, as far as he knows.
I asked my son what he thought would happen if everyone in his school refused to give consent, and requested that the police get a search warrant, signed by a judge, to search their car or backpack. He surmised that the number of searches would probably decrease, but the police would surely make trouble for anyone that tried this.
Just a day after this conversation with my son, in the wake of the tragedy in Norway, I read the following from Brian Hoffner.
What will happen to your kid when attacked by an active shooter?
We law enforcement have and will continue to train for the active shooter. When it happens I can only hope that I am close and that I get there first. Cops like me can’t stand not to be there and to not be there fast. Regardless, we can only get there so fast and people will die while waiting for us.
I don’t find it surprising, just disappointing, that the Norwegian teenagers did not team up and stop this lone shooter from massacring over 80 people. I’m not so sure it wouldn’t happen the same with American teenagers today. We saw what happened at Virginia Tech when grown college kids simple waited for their turn to die.
I was the keynote speaker a few weeks ago at a state organized school district law enforcement conference. I discovered that even after Columbine and all the active shooter incidents since that the schools may be having some lock down drills the students are still not being taught that they may have to defend themselves.
ADD is the acronym that we recommend the schools use and teach their student body. A) AVOID- get away, escape the situation to safety. D) DENY- if you cannot escape, deny the threat access to your location. Lock and barricade doors, cover windows. D) DEFEND- If avoid is impossible, and deny has failed and you are about to die…DON’T DIE! You must defend. Two or more full size students and/or teachers can overpower one individual with a firearm. One must attack the firearm while the other or others attack the shooter. Take him down and stop him from killing.
Apparently, it’s not pleasant to discuss such things with students. It could scare them. Let’s just do fire drills instead and tell the kids how smart they are, no kids left behind, just dead on the floor.
If you have children in school find out from the administration what the active shooter policy and plan is and what they are telling your children to do. Remember that YOU are the primary teacher of your children. It is your responsibility to see them succeed, achieve good grades, get into college, know how to stay safe and if necessary, defend themselves.
It’s a great big beautiful world out there, but it just takes one nut to kill eighty people in short order and there are plenty of them out there too. Do not leave home without your equipment and your head on a spindle. If you feel like you haven’t been training enough lately, then you haven’t been, take care of it.
Let others be sheep.
-Hoff
I share Hoffner's concern that, "...students are still not being taught that they may have to defend themselves." In fact, I believe it is clear that our students are being taught every single day that the government has control of political, economic, and social life through the arbitrary exercises of power by police, in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government such as teachers and principals.
»
- advertisements -
"Societal collapse", Eurodipstick? Then perhaps you could explain for us the shimmering societal successes to be found in the banlieus of Paris, or the east side of London - the Finsbury Park area also comes to mind - or the entire city of Malmo, Sweden, where the blonde girls are dying their hair dark to avoid the rape epidemic there.
I wonder if the good, gentle, docile, always-under-state-control Euroidiots getting raped or seeing their cars burn ever ask themselves, "Gee, a *GUN* would, like, *totally* come in handy right about now. I wonder why I don't have one, and am thus unable to defend myself/my property?"
And why again were the Norwegian police so slow to respond to the massacre? *Besides* the institutional cowardice of all police departments, I mean. Was it because "The guns are all locked up and we can't find the key!!"? How'd that work out for the dead folks??
My gosh. A firearm is no different than any other weapon. Newsflash, humans have been picking up rocks, sticks, speers, arrows, knives, and swords for thousands of years. The invention of the gun doesn't suddenly mean everyone is evil and all weapons must be banned. Modern weapondry, nothing more.
For someone with so little faith in human nature it's amazing you think banning guns will fix all of this. If not guns, then knives, if not knives than pure brute force, physical supperiority and numbers when those fail. A few bad apples in humanity are the problem not the tools they use. But you know what? Those bad apples will always be there and they will work hard to procure and strategically attack the weak and defenseless (that would be you in both cases). Bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US have never hurt anyone or beat anyone down over a power trip in their lives (which is why they are allowed to own firearms).
No one wants to have to fight but it's a pretty good idea to know how and have the means to do it if you are ever in such a situation, and a person not owning a certain type of weapon is no guarantee of utopia as you believe. Live and raise your kids how you want. Someday me and mine will likely have to bail you out and your tune will change to groveling thanks.
No. What is amazing is the US citizens capacity to denial and propaganda.
Nowhere in one of my previous posts would you find me arguing for guns removal. Not a single instance.
And why? Because it is unnecessary to make the point I made, that is the analysis of the Norwegian event leads to favour securization of perimeter.
This article is just another manifestation of the US citizen eternal nature, they are duplicitous and cant advance their best interests into light. It has always to be something that will help or provide a benefit to humanity.
When of course, they advance only their selfish interests.
Putting words in somebody else's mouth, strawsman. But are US citizens able to provide anything but strawsmen?
Man up if you don't want to be a victim..You sit here complaining about gun owners extorting the weak if crap hits the fan (which is BS) yet you do nothing but complain. I own guns to protect life, liberty, and property. That includes protecting the weak and vulnerable like yourself. That's one thing you don't get. Most gun owners not only believe in the second amendment, they believe in the Constitution as a whole. It's these constitutional principles that protect the minority and the majority on a equal footing. Would I stand by and allow you to become a victim of a crime if I had the means to prevent it? No
When I took my oath to defend this nation from all threats foreign and domestic, the oath wasn't discharged when I was. In my opinion, the only people that are against gun ownership have a reason to fear it. This fear comes from their actions. If you feel a armed public is something to fear, then you have a agenda that is likely questionable and surely in conflict with the founding fathers and the Constitution. What may bother you is that gun owners like myself, have taken a oath to protect this nation and the Constitution from "domestic" threats. If your agenda is againt the Constitution and it's principles, you do have reason to fear gun owners.
The only oath you took was to receive a paycheck.
In a societal collapse we would see armed but very unskilled idiots form the large cities trying to, as you say "extort" things form people in rural areas that actually have food, etc. The cities produce very little of value, and certainly no food.
Problem is, the rural types here are VERY heavily armed and considerably more skilled then some gangbanger idiot who thinks a Glock popgun is heavy firepower, probably over 80% of males and 50% of females (this is probably way too conservative an estimate) in my kids high school own their own rifle and shotgun and have spent enough time practising and hunting with it to be quite capable of winning an exchange considerably outnumbered. When you add in the AR-15's, AK-47's, and cases of ammo in their fathers gun safes, I dont think it will work out as you envision. Yeah, the city dwellers are in trouble for sure, but beyond that area it would not go well for them. The nearest town to me has a population of under 3000, yet supports 3 gun shops. Its a very different world out here.
The illusion.
US citizens in another exhibition of their legendary capacity to denial. The most entertaining segment in them is US citizens who actually believe the spin they wove.
In a nutshell, cities were built from rural zones. Not the reverse. In case of societal collapse, urban populations (all of them) desert cities as they can no longer be supported and invade rural zones.
If you think that it will be only some stragglers coming up to you in case of societal collapse...
Hopefully for them, US citizens are living under a nanny state that is able to protect them from the bad consequences of the misconceptions, miscalculations US citizens enjoy living in.
Good point Lednbrass. Add to that the fact that the cities will be the places where most military/law enforcement will be concentrated - and the first thing they will do is lock-down transportaion points.
In a martial law situation I highly doubt huge mechanized convoys of organized looters from the cities will have unfettered access to the rural countryside.
Nobody should forget that rural folks understand co-operation, have established relationships, and they know who the "trouble makers" are in their own community.
In what idealist nirvana do you live?
Like the rest of humanity, I live in a US world order. And most people who consider it nirvana are US citizens.
Talk about generalizations.
I'm well armed, have a concealed carry permit, and exercise that right every day. My family also preps hard. We have no need to extort from anybody and are continually making our position stronger - enhancing our ability to free-up resources for others, and lend a hand when/where possible. I also live in a tight-knit community where neighbors watch each others' backs. These types of community relationships are not rare, but they must be nurtured and worked at. Trust and community are both earned.
I have only put my hand on a weapon in anticipation of the possiblility of violence twice - and both times it was because I felt there was an immanent need to defend someone else's physical safety.
Yes, there are nuts out there. Yes, sometimes you are just completely fucked - you correctly state that unanticipated ambushes are difficult to defend against. But how is disarming the responsible folks going to help protect anybody from the criminals/lunitics? The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution to preserve a citizens right to hunt or target shoot - it was put in there to ensure the ultimate check on tyranny and to obviate the need for a standing army.
Your communauty will go gang style if the situation allows.
People using guns for the proper function of the device use the device in a more efficient way than people who not use them.
Guns are made to enable exercize of violence, not to protect against it.
No. I stated that ambushes are dealt with securization of perimeter and that is an irony concerning the topic of the article as the solution provided by this US citizen (unsurprisingly) is bound to generate even more of the situations this guy claims to want to eliminate.
But once again, no surprise, US citizens are duplicitous and wont tell that their true motives. It is clear that this guy wants more of securization, more job opportunities for himself and his ilk. So under 'noble' disguises, he is pushing for his selfish best interests.
Nobles were of the old order, order the US destroyed. Nobles used to do noble things. Now US citizens are doing US citizenish things and those are not noble.
"Your communauty will go gang style if the situation allows."
Allows? Do you think everybody is just waiting in anticipation of a return to the Hobbsian war of all against all?
And if scare resouces will corrupt even the most ethical amoung us into nothing more than warring factions, why would/should anyone allow themselves to be disarmed? Why would it even matter?
The US is pushing in everything for a point of no return. It is way too late for this kind of consideration, ethical people will be overwhelmed by unethical people who are promoted, selected and valorized in this US world order.
"The US" OK, stop right there. Before you continue to carry on with your position you need to identify what you mean when you use this term/string of words.
I detest militarism, from ANY nation, yet I'm OK with the notion of personal protection.
Would you disallow my use of firearms to save my livestock from being mauled?
And anyone saying that my wife can't be defended with a gun (either by myself or by her) is clearly NOT a woman. And it's this point that I'll fight for... with a gun!
Once again, my comment was not about guns ownership. It was about a US citizen typically advocating for a solution that will bring more of what he tells to want less.
I did not need to tell anything about gun ownership.
The gun ownership stuff is just cheap diversion by US citizens to avoid dealing with the core of the issue, about their nature being revealed.
"ethical people will be overwhelmed by unethical people who are promoted, selected and valorized in this US world order."
So there's no hope? One of the factors that would help tip the balance is for the ethical folks to have some means to defend themselves.
Either way, if my family is doomed to die at the hands of the brigands - I'd rather do it on my terms, on my feet, and send a strong message that deed will come at a high cost to the perpetrators.
Despair does exist. Hopeless situations do exist. When someone is pushing successful at destroying hope, then you get hopeless situations.
The US has been extremelly successful.
Is this going to be your 15 minutes of US Hate for the day?
Funny how for US citizens is all a matter of love or hate. So funny when one takes time to examine what they claim to be and support.
Funny how you mention sheeple while reciting the liberal gun control position word for word. Needless to say, this position lacks commense sense for two main reasons:
- guns ARE used by people to protect themselves
- gun control will not stop those who want to extort from obtaining them anyways
As the other guy said, FUCK OFF.
No. The primary function of guns are to back the exercize of violence. Successful people in the active use of guns are ahead of people successful in the passive use of guns.
Guns are not to deter the use of violence. Guns are to easen the use of violence.
The same can be said of any weapon. Firearms are not special. Before guns it was swords, before that knives, clubs, arrows, and rocks. I would bet significant money you have no experience whatsoever with firearm usage. I would also bet you have no idea how amazingly deadly a knife is at close range (hint - anyone with basic training in both would take the blade over the pistol at contact distances).
Clearly you are either uneducated in these matters, insane or a troll.
Ever hear of the word "grey?," as in between black and white there are shades of grey?
If I use a gun to stop a predator's mauling (committing acts of violence*) my livestock am I, in your view, doing something wrong?
* Yeah, some predators DO commit violence- ever see what a weasel does? From http://ohioline.osu.edu/vme-fact/0022.html:
Weasels and their relatives tend to bite at the vent region, pulling out the intestines. Some birds can be found walking around, dragging their intestines. Weasels and their relatives also kill for fun, which can leave scattered feathers with bloody or torn carcasses. [emphasis added]
Do you eat chicken or chicken eggs? If so, then YOU have a vested interest in ME carrying a gun in order to protect YOUR food! (unless, of course, you prefer corporate-raised food) Other than this I have no interest in you, and I'll gladly not interfere with your friendly government troops loading you on a train...
The scenario you depict is chasing for more profits and expansion.
easen?
Funny how you mention sheeple while reciting the liberal gun control position word for word. Needless to say, this position lacks commense sense for two main reasons:
- guns ARE used by people to protect themselves
- gun control will not stop those who want to extort from obtaining them anyways
As the other guy said, FUCK OFF.
Funny how you mention sheeple while reciting the liberal gun control position word for word. Needless to say, this position lacks commense sense for two main reasons:
- guns ARE used by people to protect themselves
- gun control will not stop those who want to extort from obtaining them anyways
As the author said, FUCK OFF.
You need to learn to wait a little rather than triple tapping the crap out of ZeroHedge all the time.
:)
The CIA and NATO teaming up against globalist political opposition, as well as fostering support for the growing police state via manufacturing the illusion of constant terror threat, is exactly what leads to shootings and bombings like those that recently occurred in Norway. In more rare cases, it's just lunatics.
Guns will always be available to the intelligence agencies and lunatics; Let's take a step into reality and stop with the nonsense.
policestate shut down lemonade stand. 3 law-breaking (i.e. criminal) children caught.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPKUUH7ytUo
operating a lemonade stand without a permit will get you a $500 fine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p7L3s_gyD8&feature=related
these kids really screwed up. they should have put up a donut stand. pigs have no problem with those.
Yep....those girls are terrorists....The city / police said they didn't know how the lemonade was made or what was put into it. I'll bet is was: 4 fresh lemons, 1/2 gal. water, 1 c. sugar
It is rather funny yet unsurprising that US citizens, who are gun addicts, use the story in Norway to advocate for more guns.
Because this is this attitude that leads exactly to what the situation is.
What was this Norvegian guy best's advantage? Certainly not his guns but the tactical control over terrain he set up for himself. He laid up a proper ambush.
The flaw in selling that guns would have been a change dealer is that the guy was well prepared and would have included measures to deal with guns bearers as he would have known this piece of information beforehand. And it is silly to claim that people should take to carry all kind of counter measures in case of.
So what? Ambushes are negated in one way in this case: securization of a perimeter. What are these policer officers doing? They are securizing a perimeter.
So, in a typical US citizen way, US citizens are pushing for a solution that will lead to even more of the situations they say they want to eliminate.
The US citizens nature is eternal and US citizens are duplicitous.
"So what? Ambushes are negated in one way in this case: securization of a perimeter. What are these policer officers doing? They are securizing a perimeter."
You're a fucking idiot.
The beat cop in Norway does not carry a gun. Securing it with what?...crime scene tape?
This guy (on his best day) stretches all the way up to "sockpuppet" status as a badge of honor. Gulag trusties aren't smart. They just say what Cass likes to hear.
I wonder who is the idiot.
People understood that these policer officers refer to police officers guarding the boy's school.
Tip: Google translate doesn't work for everything.
Translate for what?
The Norway event was a story of an unsecuritized perimeter.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
It is rather funny yet unsurprising that US citizens, who are gun addicts, use the story in Norway to advocate for more guns.
Because this is this attitude that leads exactly to what the situation is.
What was this Norvegian guy best's advantage? Certainly not his guns but the tactical control over terrain he set up for himself. He laid up a proper ambush.
The flaw in selling that guns would have been a change dealer is that the guy was well prepared and would have included measures to deal with guns bearers as he would have known this piece of information beforehand. And it is silly to claim that people should take to carry all kind of counter measures in case of.
So what? Ambushes are negated in one way in this case: securization of a perimeter. What are these policer officers doing? They are securizing a perimeter.
So, in a typical US citizen way, US citizens are pushing for a solution that will lead to even more of the situations they say they want to eliminate.
The US citizens nature is eternal and US citizens are duplicitous.
Double posting is caused by an itchy trigger finger. Did you know that? You sure act like you know everything.
And triple posting? No, it is caused by connection troubles.
Alas, alas, and yet again alas. If one has to know all to debunk US propaganda, the US world order would have at least this value.
But the reality is that I am far from being knowledgeable and the US propaganda is so cheap I can see through.
Have not people noticed that US citizens like the dumb and dumber thesis? Not because it is real but because their propaganda is so low quality they need dumber and dumber people to get bamboozled.
It has grown to a point that even negroes are no longer conned by US propaganda.
Hence the need of guns to coerce people to accept 'reality' as it is depicted by US propagandists, better known as US citizens.
Seeing as how 68 people died from gun shot wounds, I'm pretty sure his advantage was the guns. Arm him with a straw and some spit wads, but grant him the tactical control over the terrain, and I'll bet you 68 people would still be alive.
Let me be clear, I am NOT advocating gun bans...just the opposite. Guns are out there whether you like it or not, and can be obtained both legally or illegally. If you take away the right of responsible citizens to legally obtain and bear firearms, then you significantly tip the odds in favor of those who obtain and use them illegally. If one or two people at that camp were armed, it would have saved lives, I can't say how many, but definitely some. Even if they were unable to take out the shooter, at minimum they would have prevented him from firing at will on an unarmed crowd, as he would have been forced to deal with the returned threat. This would have allowed more time for others to escape.
Responsible firearm ownership creates a deterrent against criminal activity via the potential for returned threat. That is my American answer. If you don't like it, I have another one for you...go fuck yourself!
Responsible firearm ownership creates a deterrent against criminal activity via the potential for returned threat. That is my American answer. If you don't like it, I have another one for you...go fuck yourself! No. The US answer has been to spread criminality. No civilization before the US has fallen as far in love with criminality, spinning tales for criminals. The US has since the start been a story of extortion of the weak, of farming of the poor, of disrespect of their own laws and principles, unfortunately but not surprisingly, tied to humanity. The US solution is certainly not to deter criminality but to make criminality the default behaviour ('it is all because of human nature') and prevail as the best criminals ever known in human history. That is the US answer.
No. The US answer has been to spread criminality. No civilization before the US has fallen as far in love with criminality, spinning tales for criminals.
The US has since the start been a story of extortion of the weak, of farming of the poor, of disrespect of their own laws and principles, unfortunately but not surprisingly, tied to humanity.
The US solution is certainly not to deter criminality but to make criminality the default behaviour ('it is all because of human nature') and prevail as the best criminals ever known in human history.
That is the US answer.
I'll bet that you can double post this one too if you really try.
Over and over the police have arrived to the scene of an active shooter and then waited outside. For example, Columbine. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/20/earlyshow/main612726.shtml
In my lifetime, I have been around both military and law enforcement. The problem is two-fold, they have families and bosses.
From experience, it's real hard to put your life on the life for someone that you don't know when you realize that your own children may grow up without a parent. Also, law enforcement waits for hierarchal dictates and direction before taking action. Sometimes, the action comes to them, as in the criminal pulls a gun. In that case, it is kill or be killed. But most of the time, there is a systematic approach to prevent the needless death of law enforcement.
Generally speaking, it is courageous, reliant or ARMED citizens that prevents additional loss of life. For example, 9/11, when the airplane passengers took it upon themselves to prevent the additional loss of life by storming the hijackers and crashing the plane in Pennsylvania. I have a profound and deep respect for those folks; I have little respect for the traffic cop that enforces seat-belt laws.
More people should own guns and be free from concern that the government will limit their gun rights with intrusive gun laws.
maybe not the best example to justify your argument, as even in the storyline put forth, no guns were involved.
that it is also fictitious, well. . .
I'm not disagreeing with you but have some comments. If police officers do not want to risk their lives then they should not sign up. No one forced them to be police officers. You said, "But most of the time, there is a systematic approach to prevent the needless death of law enforcement." And I object to the police procedure of protecting police lives at the expense of civilian lives. I think civilian lives could have been saved at Columbine and Virginia State had the police put theirs at risk. Instead the police made sure they were safe.
As to armed civilians, I agree, contrary to what organizations like the ICOP and many individual officers say. In the Texas Clock Tower shooting, armed civilians from nearby apartments kept the shooter pinned down and prevented more deaths. And yet law abiding and trained civilians cannot have firearms on many campuses.