Concerning this article, I sent the authors a short note as follows.
So here is an important question about your coverage of the happenings in Charlotte. I follow this sort of thing and have ascertained that more often than not, when the NG is deployed, they aren’t under “arming orders.” This was true of the NG deployed to the Mexican border (they mostly sat in offices and aided with paperwork as they had no ammunition given to them for their weapons), and was true of the NG deployed in Ferguson. Issuing arming orders is a big deal, involving training, requalification by the riflemen, issuing “rules for the use of force” that have been reviewed by the lawyers, etc., etc.
But they rarely listen to a blogger, so you might ask the question of the officials. You might catch them flat footed and they will likely refuse to answer you because it might show the world that deploying the NG is just window dressing and none of them have ammunition.
If you ask and they answer, I’d appreciate attribution please.
David Codrea has an interesting post on police and their view of assault weapons.
State Police Supt. Col. Steven G. O’Donnell said Monday they’d like to see a reinstatement of the ban on the sale of assault weapons…O’Donnell said assault weapons have one purpose, to kill people in war. He says civilians should not have assault weapons. [More]
So that’s why you guys have them, Steve? To have your standing army make war onand kill“civilians”?
Yet another indication of this elitism is seen up North.
The head of the NYPD’s largest police union yesterday called for an ”absolute ban” on assault weapons — except for cops and members of the military.
“There is no legitimate reason for an assault weapon with their high capacity magazines to ever be in the hands of a private citizen,” said Pat Lynch, head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.
[ … ]
“There’s no reason for anybody to have those type of weapons,” he added.
Lynch’s comments echoed those of Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.
If there is no reason for anyone to have these weapons, and if their only purpose is in making war, then why do the police need them? Ah. Here is a key point. The Supreme Court decision in Tennessee versus Garner clearly decided that law enforcement doesn’t have the right to enforce the law by the power of arms. They can only shoot in self defense. If that’s the case – and it is – then why do the police get to defend themselves with their choice of arms and I don’t?
Here is the backdrop. The Philadelphia police spy someone legally engaged in open carry, accost the citizen, and later find out they are being recorded (it’s too bad that we have no video, this is audio only).
Can someone tell me why this is okay? I don’t see any reason for this being acceptable behavior for any police officer, anywhere. It’s not acceptable for an officer not to know the constitution, it’s not acceptable for a police officer not to be cognizant of his own department’s policies, and it’s not ever acceptable for a police officer to verbally abuse someone.
Or perhaps Philadelphia wants to be known as “The city of brotherly get the fuck on your knees and shut the fuck up,” especially if you aren’t one of the few in a city of around 1.5 million people who are personally known by a police officer?