johnott

Reportedly the old man was legally blind and nearly deaf. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/08/107-year-old-man-dies-in-shootout-with-swat-team/ IF the reports are true then the old man (at best) was shooting at shadows. He would have been lucky to hit anything. If the PD can't disarm a guy who's 107 and nearly blind and deaf then I fear for all of us.

I also dislike red light cameras for many of the reasons cited here, but to clarify the rules regarding yellow lights... "A motorist must stop: When a yellow light follows a green light, a motorist must stop before entering the intersection, unless yellow appears when the vehicle is too close to stop safely." -NJ Drivers Manual page 70-71. You are not supposed to proceed through an intersection on a yellow light unless it is unsafe to stop. If you can stop safely you are supposed to stop at all yellow lights (that follow green). Now, coming to a complete stop is a different story. IMO... you have made a stop when you cease all forward or rearward movement. Once you have stopped you are not to proceed unless it is safe to do so. So if you stop for a fraction of a second it could be argued that it is not enough time for a person to properly evaluate whether it is safe to proceed.

Sadly the public has a short memory. When hostilities break out they praise you for your service... and when things wind down they start cutting your benefits. On a side note: One thing that feeds into this disability issue is that there are too many people today who are claiming to be "disabled" but are truly not. Too many people (not all) have handicapped placards who have no apparent handicap. This leads people to be skeptical of those who may actually be disabled. As a person who has a handicapped placard and license plate I'm in favor of a system wide review of all persons claiming to be handicapped and weeding out those who do not meet the criteria under NJ law. Too many doctors are signing off on patients who do not need a handicapped permit. The same goes for Social Security Disability... too many people on it who don't need it and too many who need it can't get it. The system is broken.

(Sorry, I just can't help myself.) http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130731/DA7SPSGO2.html "AP IMPACT: Little restraint in military giveaways" Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from the article: "An Associated Press investigation of the Defense Department program, originally aimed at helping local law enforcement fight terrorism and drug trafficking, found that a disproportionate share of the $4.2 billion worth of property distributed since 1990 has been obtained by police departments and sheriff's offices in rural areas with few officers and little crime." ""Critics fear the glut of freebies is helping to transform many local police departments into paramilitary forces. Norm Stamper, a retired Seattle police chief who is now a spokesman for a nonprofit group that supports legalizing and regulating illicit drugs, said the program is fueling a pervasive, troubling trend. "The harm for me is that it further militarizes American law enforcement," Stamper said. "We make a serious mistake, I'm convinced, in equipping domestic law enforcement, particularly in smaller, rural communities, with this much military equipment."" -I have no comment, just posting information.

As I have previously stated... "Apart from the outcome", were the actions "initiated" by the police in this instance warranted. Would anyone have been shot or killed if the police hadn't chose to go after him in the way that they did? You are still focusing on what Mr. Stewart did, as if nothing precipitated his actions. He didn't walk into a police station and start shooting cops, the police busted down his door with guns drawn. But Mr. Stewarts guilt or innocence is not the point of the article, it is primarily about how the confrontation got started. What was the catalyst that caused this confrontation to unfold and was that action warranted. Was that action due to the militarization of police tactics? Were their tactics too aggressive? "6. Some of the police didn't have body armor as they considered this a low risk warrant." -So, it takes this many police (and some with body armor) to serve a low risk warrant. <That's what I'm talking about. From the beginning, based upon the initial warrant it appears to be about the pot plants. Is this the way the police execute "low risk" warrants? "The Stewart case is far from an example of "militarization of the police"... < What about the use of aggressive tactics in supposedly low risk incidents. At this point it is all rather moot, since we will never know Mr. Stewart's side of the story. Did he have PTSD or was he just psychotic? Whether he was or wasn't does not excuse his actions but it would help explain them. It seems evident to me that all LEO's here have dismissed the whole concept or premise of the article I posted. I know the article wasn't flattering towards members of law enforcement, but the article troubled me and got me thinking. For what ever reason, I don't think I will gain any further insight on this matter by discussing it on this forum. I have grown weary of trying to explain my position and I have no desire to argue or debate any further. I will refrain from posting similar topics as they seem to be non-productive areas of discussion.

You are correct, we are not privy to all the details but the discussion is not about "all the details". For the sake of argument, take Mr. Stewart's story at face value. The article states that Mr. Stewart was a veteran and had PTSD (is that true? I don't know for sure, but it doesn't appear to be disputed.). It further states the he (Stewart) was guilty of growing marijuana in his basement. "Apart from the outcome", were the actions "initiated" by the police in this instance warranted. After all "if" it was only about illegal pot plants in the basement and he had no prior criminal record, it does seem over-the-top. I mean he was suspected of growing some pot, he was not the Boston bomber. As written, do the police bear any responsibility? That being said, those three paragraphs pertaining to Matthew David Stewart are just a fraction of the entire article, a mere jumping off point. Here are a few quotes from the the article: "Over the next several years, stories emerged of federal agents breaking down the doors of private homes (often without a warrant) and terrorizing innocent citizens and families. Congress repealed the no-knock law in 1974, but the policy would soon make a comeback (without congressional authorization)." -Is that true? "National Guard helicopters and U-2 spy planes flew the California skies in search of marijuana plants." -Is that true? "Advocates of these tactics said that drug dealers were acquiring ever bigger weapons and the police needed to stay a step ahead in the arms race. There were indeed a few high-profile incidents in which police were outgunned, but no data exist suggesting that it was a widespread problem. A study done in 1991 by the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute found that less than one-eighth of 1% of homicides in the U.S. were committed with a military-grade weapon." -Is that true? "...the 2006 story about the Tibetan monks who had overstayed their visas while visiting America on a peace mission. In Iowa, the hapless holy men were apprehended by a SWAT team in full gear." -Is that true? "...Katherine Johnston, a 92-year-old woman killed by an Atlanta narcotics team acting on a bad tip from an informant in 2006; Alberto Sepulveda, an 11-year-old accidentally shot by a California SWAT officer during a 2000 drug raid; and Eurie Stamps, killed in a 2011 raid on his home in Framingham, Mass., when an officer says his gun mistakenly discharged. Mr. Stamps wasn't a suspect in the investigation." -Is that true? "Consider today's police recruitment videos (widely available on YouTube), which often feature cops rappelling from helicopters, shooting big guns, kicking down doors and tackling suspects. Such campaigns embody an American policing culture that has become too isolated, confrontational and militaristic, and they tend to attract recruits for the wrong reasons." -Is that true? Point being, that there are a lot of other issues we can discuss besides the ambiguity of Mr. Stewarts guilt or innocence.

Though this topic has covered 5 pages so far, I have read nothing that has allayed my initial concerns nor has anything or anyone made a clear enough argument to dispel the contents of the article posted. The article cites certain events and provides data in a factual manner. If you dispute any portion of the article in question, please rebut by citing something factual in return, cite a reference. Opinions don't seem to be getting us anywhere.

I never said or implied anything on this thread be banned. But... If the public sees war footage from Afghanistan on the news and they see soldiers breaking down a door in an urban area, how are they supposed to differentiate that image with the one where they see police dressed similarly busting down someones door here? You can't say that appearances never count or that appearances don't mean anything. Police use appearance in part as a way to identify potential suspects. I think appearance and function are tied together at least when it comes to the issue of the "warrior cop". Part of the issue is based on visual perception and the other part based on factual news events. It's up to law enforcement to educate the public if their actions are being misinterpreted. I get the feeling that "some" (not all) Leo's who done military style garb and weapons begin to feel like they are military and start to act military. In so far as, they are at war and that the civilian population is nothing more than potential enemy combatants. I hope I am proven wrong.

I don't know how this conversation got so focused on SWAT. My comments were never about singling out any specific group of law enforcement as the sole component of militarization. But as a a veteran myself I think I know military-like functions and tactics when I see them. We seem to be arguing over semantics... if we could leave SWAT out of this for a moment we could get back to talking about the police force in general and other government agencies as a whole and the effect they are having on the general public and the perception that they are becoming more like the military than most Americans are used to seeing.

To clarify my earlier statement. I have nothing against SWAT. Police force personnel (in general) are becoming more "SWAT-like" even though they are not on a SWAT team themselves. It seems everyone is emulating SWAT or Special OPs in some way or another. The average citizen has a hard time telling who is who. From the front, SWAT, DHS, FDA, ICE, etc. all look alike. People dressed in Camo or black with helmets, vests and AR type rifles and handguns strapped to their thigh. It looks like we are dealing with the military rather than the police.

High Exposure: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. You said..."training and equipment that has been found to be effective by the Military in the current war are just that. Effective". So you are claiming that using Military War Tactics doesn't make you militarized in any way? I don't see your point. I have no problem with Tactics and Technology when they are used against the "bad guys" in extreme situations such as, hostage situations, terrorism, etc. But it doesn't stop there. It is becoming the way to deal with every situation. So, is everything permissible as long as the end justifies the means?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories Article from the Wall Street Journal for 19 Jun 2013: Rise of the Warrior Cop. I agree with much of the article. The police force has changed drastically from years ago. New tactics are a good thing if used correctly and sparingly, but para-military tactics are being used way too much by too many. I don't like it. It worries me that these practices are so accepted and widespread. Police teams are looking more like Commando's or Special Ops than police officers; that would be o.k. if they were going after terrorists... but oft times they are going after average citizens for minor offenses that don't warrant deadly force. Many articles I've read over the years show a disturbing trend in how the police interact with individuals. They seem to push for confrontation. It seems that a citizen just can't do anything right... if you take a step forward then you are being aggressive, if you take a step backward then you are resisting arrest, if you don't move then you're obstructing justice. (I have had no problems with the police where I live. No-one has ever hassled me, but then again I'm an old guy who basically minds his own business and stays out of trouble.) Nevertheless, I still find this information troubling.

McGuire used to belong to the 438th Military Airlift Command (MAC) before it was deactivated and the 514th Air Mobility Wing (AMW) took over. I use to work on the flight-line and watched the C-141b's take off and land all the time. I do miss the roar of the engines.

Lol. The reason I mentioned the blind is that I was legally blind for over 10 years, I had the white cane with a red tip (the whole bit). Of course I didn't drive, my wife did and as a passenger it was helpful to park in the handicapped spot. Let me tell you having a white cane is not much protection. I was nearly run over a few times because people didn't seem to recognize the meaning or the legal requirements to yield to someone who is blind. (After a number of years I recovered my vision in one eye through surgery.) I can agree with you that many people drive like they're blind.

I see the same thing as well. I have handicapped plates because I am disabled. Most people do not see a difference between being disabled and being handicapped, but there is one. Having a handicap does not necessarily make a person disabled. Plenty of handicapped people work, but not many disabled people do. In NJ a handicapped placard or license plate was intended strictly for those with mobility problems. At one time manual (non-electric) wheelchairs were an issue... it was difficult for people to push themselves along, especially older individuals. So they made special parking spots for them so they would not have to push their wheelchairs so far. BUT today with the advent of electric wheelchairs I see no reason why an individual with an electric wheelchair needs to park so close. They may need a "wider" wheelchair parking spot located somewhere in the lot, but their mobility issue has been adequately compensated for (at least as it pertains to traveling from the car to the front door). The people who really need those front row spaces are those who are not wheelchair bound and have mobility issues... the blind, people who use walkers or canes and other disabled individuals. It's unfortunate that it is not PC to challenge a persons handicap claim. Today, it is obvious that handicapped placards are handed out like water and all the "posers" are giving people with disabilities a bad name. ...90% of the people I've observed show no mobility issues at all. They practically leap out of their vehicles, run the length of the store and race back out carrying arm loads of merchandise. -How is it that a guy in a super-sized pickup truck that is obviously used as a work vehicle is parked in a handicapped spot at Home Depot? He can climb in and out of that truck and is apparently doing construction work, but he's so handicapped he has to park closer to the door? Handicapped parking fraud is rampant and I think they should change the rules and screening process to weed out those who obviously don't require it. Sorry for the long post. This is really a pet peeve of mine.

I agree. Our state government should have more respect for the American flag and they should be more aware of it's proper usage.

Sorry for your loss... "may the souls of the faithful departed rest in the Mercy of God."

We've had them here in Gloucester county for a few years now. These mosquitoes seem to be out all day long and not just in the evening. They'll bite you in the face or where ever they can land... even if you cover yourself with Deet they'll bite you right through your clothes. They don't fly away when you swat at them, they just keep buzzing around trying to land on you. They're aggressive and their bite oft times can be felt. I hate 'em with a passion.

Comments deleted.

Comments deleted.

Comments deleted.

Sorry to hear about the fire... Hope Bob and the gang are o.k.

I don't think that a persons first response or concern when witnessing a spontaneous event is about being sued. The speed in which most accidents and criminal acts usually occur doesn't leave enough time to ponder the legal ramifications of getting involved. You could argue that some people are preconditioned to not get involved because they fear they will be sued. And it is true that people are going to do what they are trained or "conditioned" to do. If you are conditioned to observe then that's what you will do whether or not you will be sued. If you are conditioned to react and thereby intervene then that's what you will do also. Our technology and constant media saturation is conditioning us to be observers and not participants. I think society as a whole is more influenced by constant media bombardment 24/7 than it is lawsuits. When people see something actually happening in front of them it is as if they are watching it on TV. I'm sure you must have heard victims or witnesses say the situation felt surreal or like a movie. Ever been to lunch with a bunch of friends or relatives and nobody is talking... instead they're all on their cellphones? People are becoming disengaged with personal interaction. Lawyers have always been around, but current technology has not.

Fear to become involved may be part of the problem but I think as a society we've grown accustomed to being spectators. We observe too much video on TV and over the Internet; News, YouTube, Movies, etc... After a time we become conditioned to disassociate ourselves from what we are seeing. We watch and wait for something or someone to intervene. We watch in sort of disbelief and wait for the hero to enter and save the day like we're watching a movie. Also when other people are present we watch in anticipation that one of them are going to do something. As a society we've become somewhat dysfunctional in this regard.

If you want to use logic, reason or common sense... then yes it is perfectly acceptable; BUT this is New Jersey and that type of thinking doesn't apply here. IMO (I am not an LEO)---> If you are stopped lets say for a MV violation and the items in question are discovered then it's totally in the hands of the LEO who stopped you. Whatever "his" interpretation of the law is (whether it's his own opinion or a practice put in place by his department) will determine whether or not you will be charged. It has nothing to do with your interpretation no matter how right or reasonable it may be. Now the chance that you may be stopped at the particular time at which you are returning from or going to the range is slim... but it could happen. In NJ you have no guarantees as to what could or will happen.