• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

WA state sheriff deputy "We have a lot of Constitutionalists" to justify MRAP use.

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Anyway, this is another underhanded discussion tactic. Someone should really come up with a name for this informal fallacy. Maybe we can call it "argument by 'oh yeah, and what have you done lately!?'".

I think it is the "Only cops are qualified to judge a cop's actions" fallacy.
I see it commonly used to rebuke criticisms of cop shootings. WE weren't there. WE don't know what cops have to deal with. WE can't understand.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Franky, I believe that enforcement of a great many laws presently on the books is unjustifiably immoral.

You're asking me to sacrifice my soul for political expediency. Would you do the same?

Anyway, this is another underhanded discussion tactic. Someone should really come up with a name for this informal fallacy. Maybe we can call it "argument by 'oh yeah, and what have you done lately!?'".

We can call it the Janet Jackson argument.

[video=youtube;r9uizdKZAGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uizdKZAGE[/video]
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
We can call it the Janet Jackson argument.

[video=youtube;r9uizdKZAGE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9uizdKZAGE[/video]

What I wanna know is if you have to google for your random musical references, or if you always just had Janet Jackson in the back of your mind somewhere. :lol:

ETA: That video is hilarious btw.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I think it is the "Only cops are qualified to judge a cop's actions" fallacy.
I see it commonly used to rebuke criticisms of cop shootings. WE weren't there. WE don't know what cops have to deal with. WE can't understand.

Certainly, private citizens must be qualified to judge the actions of the police at least in the case of going to a jury trial.

But in rendering such judgment, we must judge based on what the law permits/expects of police officers and what is reasonable for officers to do, rather than on what is expected of private citizens. Yes, this is a double standard. It is the standard that encourages me to run away from threats while expecting cops to run toward them and resolve them.

This is not a free pass for cops. But any fair judgment of officer conduct has to account for what it is they are hired to do. In most cases you and I have no reason to try to apprehend a suspect; we are allowed and encouraged to remove ourselves from potentially dangerous situations. Police officers are expected to go arrest the guy and bring him to court to face trial and possible conviction and punishment. When the suspect resists, police have to have more authority and power than to just let him go because he doesn't want to be arrested. I don't have to be a cop to understand this. But I have to understand it in order to render reasonable judgment of an officer's conduct.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
What I wanna know is if you have to google for your random musical references, or if you always just had Janet Jackson in the back of your mind somewhere. :lol:

ETA: That video is hilarious btw.

I went straight to youtube to find it. But yea I remembered before looking for the video. JJ was kinda cute though in a 80's sorta way.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I've personally been involved in an incident where one was used as cover for a citizen to be able to cross a street to get home and away from the incident. Had a gentleman barricaded in a house with firearms who had threatened to shoot several citizens. Not cops. Citizens.

Is there some news article? Nothing that says that tool was used and how.

EMTs use stretchers right? Have you ever seen an article that says a stretcher used one to safe a life? No. Its just a tool used. Maybe the article says they were saved but not every tool used.

I'll have to look but I think I saw footage of the Canada shooting where they were using armor as cover and/or transport for citizens. I may be wrong but I'll poke around for photos or video or article as a cite.

Finally, a dead rescuer can't save anyone. So if it saves the rescuer then by chain it saves the citizen. If a bad guy knew he had advantage over the rescuers then he'd NEVER give up or let them go. Things like armor give the clear advantage to rescuers there by forcing the bad guys to either quit or kill themselves.

Bad analogy, stretchers were made for what they were used for. What were these vehicles made for?

Franky, I believe that enforcement of a great many laws presently on the books is unjustifiably immoral.

You're asking me to sacrifice my soul for political expediency. Would you do the same?

Anyway, this is another underhanded discussion tactic. Someone should really come up with a name for this informal fallacy. Maybe we can call it "argument by 'oh yeah, and what have you done lately!?'".

Yea, its been popping up here lately a bit. The assumption that we aren't doing anything or that we have to is plain dumb.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Bad analogy, stretchers were made for what they were used for. What were these vehicles made for?

I believe they were made to protect the occupants from gun fire and perhaps small explosives.

You realize you just used the exact argument used by gun-grabbers when they argue that we can't compare deaths from guns, cars, buckets, and tire irons because guns are unique in that they were made specifically for killing. And all quibbling over target practice or "use of force at a distance" not withstanding, that is what guns were made for. I carry a gun precisely because it is more effective at stopping a hostile threat than say a slinky would be.

Guns in private hands could lead to blood in the streets. They haven't. And they have a nice track record of preventing genocide and common crime.

Armored vehicles in police department inventories could be used to oppress Americans. And in some cases they have, IMO. The images of an armored vehicle injecting tear gas into a building full of women and children in Waco, which building very soon became a crematorium for those same, very much alive persons, are seared into my mind. That vehicle was under the control of a federal agency, if I recall.

Does this mean that armored vehicles are inherently bad for some number of local departments to have in their inventory? I don't know. I am troubled by it. But I'd rather learn how cops use them and believe they might use them in the future than shut down discussion flow.

Yea, its been popping up here lately a bit. The assumption that we aren't doing anything or that we have to is plain dumb.

Nobody has to do anything. But it would be a shame if this board were nothing but recreation, rather than some kind of catalyst for enhancing our efforts to promote RKBA.

Charles
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I believe they were made to protect the occupants from gun fire and perhaps small explosives.

You realize you just used the exact argument used by gun-grabbers when they argue that we can't compare deaths from guns, cars, buckets, and tire irons because guns are unique in that they were made specifically for killing. And all quibbling over target practice or "use of force at a distance" not withstanding, that is what guns were made for. I carry a gun precisely because it is more effective at stopping a hostile threat than say a slinky would be.

Guns in private hands could lead to blood in the streets. They haven't. And they have a nice track record of preventing genocide and common crime.

Armored vehicles in police department inventories could be used to oppress Americans. And in some cases they have, IMO. The images of an armored vehicle injecting tear gas into a building full of women and children in Waco, which building very soon became a crematorium for those same, very much alive persons, are seared into my mind. That vehicle was under the control of a federal agency, if I recall.

Does this mean that armored vehicles are inherently bad for some number of local departments to have in their inventory? I don't know. I am troubled by it. But I'd rather learn how cops use them and believe they might use them in the future than shut down discussion flow.


Maybe you missed my point to Primus. You left out that they were meant to protect soldiers in military activities.

The argument comparing public to private is one that does not equate.

I have no problem with private individuals buying owing these vehicles. The Feds should auction them off so even the public can buy them. Gifting them and the strings attached is horrendous.

As the pictures show, they don't use them for the excuses they make up to rationalize their possession.




Nobody has to do anything. But it would be a shame if this board were nothing but recreation, rather than some kind of catalyst for enhancing our efforts to promote RKBA.

When used as a fallacy in an argument it is still dumb. Talking (or typing) is doing something. Many of us do do a lot more than just type.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Maybe you missed my point to Primus. You left out that they were meant to protect soldiers in military activities.

The argument comparing public to private is one that does not equate.

I have no problem with private individuals buying owing these vehicles. The Feds should auction them off so even the public can buy them. Gifting them and the strings attached is horrendous.

As the pictures show, they don't use them for the excuses they make up to rationalize their possession.






When used as a fallacy in an argument it is still dumb. Talking (or typing) is doing something. Many of us do do a lot more than just type.
Svg... The modern ar-15 platform (notice word platform and not model) was designed by colt for the military when they needed a newer semi auto rifle platform. It was designed for soldiers in military activities. What about the AK platform? Same thing.

Does that mean no one else can have it? Or does it mean only citizens can have it but not cops?

Are you saying if me and my department built our own mad max battle tank we could have it since it was designed or used by military?

Or can we never have ANY armor no matter who builds it or what model since the military uses armor?

I won't hold my breath for individual responses to each question.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Most notably, there is every indication that ArmaLite would have marketed the firearm commercially independent of its success with various governments. They designed it on speculation.

Also, we can thank the Air Force for recognizing an effective design when they saw it. If they hadn't been looking for what is effectively an easy-to-use target rifle for what are effectively part-time riflemen, the rest of the military would have continued (for at least a while) behaving as though every recruit possessed a lifetime of experience with major rifle calibers and fully automatic fire.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
You should become an "insider" because I am not your puppet or mouthpiece. Instead of me going to work and saying "hey guys I met this dude in the internet and he has this opinion on this and it got me thinking....." You should become my boss (not hypothetically but literally) or over some direct change by joining and changing stuff on the street.

You really do have a good ideas and viewpoints. Your one of the few that's a regular poster that I actually listen and try to change stuff or at least stop and rethink for a moment.

But at the end of the day your just a anonymous dude on the internet postng some ideas and opinions (even if they are good ones). That means your literal affect on anything is well.. Minimal if at all. Even if you somehow retrained my thinking I'm one dude on the street. If you were my chief you'd implement ideas to about 300.

Make sense?

Finally, we do disagree on some points. If I disagree you can't expect me to affect change that you want because you asked real nicely. If you want change YOU change it.... Thats said with respect.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. I explicitly stated that "you" (a cop), in that other thread way back when, are in a better position to effect change than any outsider. I, as a civilian, must resort to persuasion, persistence, and fortitude, and hope that a top cop will institute change. (honey)

On the other end of the spectrum is the civil suit. That is a avenue that places cops on the defensive and engenders resentment. The "why they picking on me for doing my job" mindset. All this really does is reverse any gains and will increase resistance to change in the future. (vinegar)

My efforts to casually/informally get my local cop shop to think beyond mere "training" and to lead and manage yield little in the way of results. I am by no means a expert on LE but I can read the laws just as any cop can read the laws. A "field manual" is not much use when cops don't read them or think they know what is in them without even opening the book. Specifically, firearm laws here in MO, they ain't complicated or long reads yet cops have a difficult time understanding the few words used in the few firearm laws we do have. Then there is the top cop who happens to disagree with the law(s) and institutes policies that are all but directives to violate rights and the law.

I'd much rather a top cop take my idea(s) and call them their own, take the credit, I'll be satisfied with cops respecting rights and following the law. Yet, my suggestions are rarely acknowledged and when they are it is usually a hollow reading of "Thanks, I'll take it under advisement." Heck, it's a chore to even get a glimpse of the LEAs policy handbook or their field manual. Not sure why such secrecy is needed, though, some LEAs seem to have stacks of them at every C-store, just not my cop shop.

I don't have all the answers to every cop shop issue, not interested in the vast majority of their issues, except where firearms and the lawful carry thereof is concerned. I let cops do what they do best and I keep providing suggestions to make the cop shop/citizen dynamic agreeable to all where firearms concerned.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
Svg... The modern ar-15 platform (notice word platform and not model) was designed by colt for the military when they needed a newer semi auto rifle platform. It was designed for soldiers in military activities. What about the AK platform? Same thing.

Does that mean no one else can have it? Or does it mean only citizens can have it but not cops?

Are you saying if me and my department built our own mad max battle tank we could have it since it was designed or used by military?

Or can we never have ANY armor no matter who builds it or what model since the military uses armor?

I won't hold my breath for individual responses to each question.

I can't believe I have to keep repeating this to you. Private civilians and public servants is not equatable.

I have no problems with civilians owning and having military weapons.

I have a huge problem with cops owning weapons of war since the people they will be using them on are the people they supposedly serve. Especially when the means for equipping these war machines comes from theft.

I am saying you shouldn't have the funds in your department to build/own/maintain a mad max battle tank.

Your last question is plain silly, is the armor an offensive weapon? I wonder why some states with the support of their cops are working to outlaw civilian use of armor?
 
Top