|
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
[Re: stony-man]
#918223
12/04/08 10:28 AM
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,768
Trail Leader
|
I think it's a pretty common way of referring to the NG among fulltime Army, and cops. Most cops are wanna be soldiers on some level. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I've never heard a cop make any reference to the NG in that way whatsoever and I've been around and worked with plenty in my life. In fact, many cops ARE national guardsman. A police officer is going to welcome any back up he can get in a serious situation, so I'm sure they are generally happy with any national guard or even active military help. The only time they might get testy is if they are being replaced by NG or active troops to the point where they actually risk losing their jobs or even overtime. On the other hand, I do also work with guys who were ex-active military and yes, some of them have nothing good to say about NG or reserves for some reason. Sounds to like the same thing you have between Marines and Navy and Army and Air Force. Everyone hates everyone else, but when the shyt hits the fan, they're all Americans and they'll all glad they're on the same team. I'm not qualified to comment about any of this, so I'll stay out of this debate, but let's not overreact too much and get off track over the real issue here. Bretwalda is correct that the local police are being para-militarized to some degree. I know the conspiracy theories, but at least on the surface, it's more a reaction to the threat of the higher crime and more bold criminals. Only a few years ago, the standard issue sidearm for most cops was a 6 shot .38 special and an 870 shotgun with 4 rounds. The reason all that changed was events that took place that caused the police to be outgunned and so they reacted with high capacity semi-auto handguns, higher capacity shotguns and eventually AR15s and mini-14s. And lately, the trend has been to start going to militarized uniforms, which are far more comfortable. I know it looks bad and I totally agree that the Feds are definately getting involved in coordination and training of local law enforcement, but to the average officer, it's mostly about their personal safety. You may not see it in your lives, but there a whole other world out there that the general public never sees or experiences or has any clue exists. These cops live through that world everyday and while it may seem like some crime in some areas has gone down, for many cops the job has only gotten harder. What's gone down is crime to you or what is reported. But for the cops, things are only getting more and more dangerous everyday. Unfortunately this is sort of a no win situation. If the cops don't gear up with what they need, they are in greater danger. I don't think additional cops is avoidable. What I would rather see is more civilian cops that remain under local control and not military soldiers supplanting them, under federal and military control.
|
|
|
Entire Thread
|
20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
stony-man
|
12/01/08 09:47 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
kewlynx
|
12/02/08 03:25 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/02/08 04:33 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
kewlynx
|
12/02/08 04:41 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/02/08 05:24 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Snowtoy
|
12/02/08 05:59 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/02/08 09:16 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
kewlynx
|
12/02/08 12:36 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
cmonty72
|
12/02/08 06:22 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/02/08 07:19 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Hiker
|
12/02/08 07:08 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
stony-man
|
12/02/08 07:14 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brian894X4
|
12/02/08 10:33 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
StockRaider
|
12/02/08 11:26 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Snowtoy
|
12/03/08 08:39 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brian894X4
|
12/03/08 01:08 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brown81CJ5
|
12/03/08 07:11 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
stony-man
|
12/03/08 10:01 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Snowtoy
|
12/03/08 10:23 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brian894X4
|
12/04/08 12:53 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Snowtoy
|
12/03/08 10:19 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Grasscat
|
12/04/08 01:38 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
kewlynx
|
12/04/08 04:27 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
StockRaider
|
12/04/08 07:00 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
stony-man
|
12/04/08 07:02 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brian894X4
|
12/04/08 10:28 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brown81CJ5
|
12/04/08 02:49 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/04/08 08:54 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
cmonty72
|
12/04/08 05:47 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
NathanC
|
12/05/08 04:39 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
kewlynx
|
12/05/08 06:12 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
cmonty72
|
12/05/08 07:19 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
kewlynx
|
12/05/08 08:10 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brian894X4
|
12/05/08 09:06 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/05/08 05:29 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
cmonty72
|
12/05/08 05:51 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brian894X4
|
12/05/08 07:03 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
cmonty72
|
12/05/08 08:37 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/05/08 09:13 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
cmonty72
|
12/06/08 05:14 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
bretwalda
|
12/16/08 06:55 AM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Brown81CJ5
|
12/16/08 04:38 PM
|
Re: 20,000 troops deploy, HERE
|
Snowtoy
|
12/04/08 10:45 PM
|
|
|