• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The Day Shit Got Real

Well, the cops are killing more people, but less of a big deal is being made about it.
 
One key difference is that there's no draft.

If you were a young person in 1970, you had a chance of your number being called. You probably knew someone who'd been drafted. Maybe a family member or friend went to Vietnam. Maybe they wound up dead. Maybe you'd wind up dead.

For a couple million conscripts during the Vietnam era, shit was very real.
 
One key difference is that there's no draft.

If you were a young person in 1970, you had a chance of your number being called. You probably knew someone who'd been drafted. Maybe a family member or friend went to Vietnam. Maybe they wound up dead. Maybe you'd wind up dead.

For a couple million conscripts during the Vietnam era, shit was very real.

Yes, but you could get a deferment. And college was thought to be a safe place that could keep you from going to a place where you would get shot and killed (at least if you were white and middle classed).

Then white middle class kids got shot and killed on a nice white middle class college campus.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the cops are killing more people, but less of a big deal is being made about it.

the militarized cops.
 
Well, the cops are killing more people, but less of a big deal is being made about it.

It was the National Guard, Nixon's "tin soldiers", that did the killing at Kent State, not the police.

Of course, our police are becoming increasingly militarized, so maybe the comparison is not all that far off.
 
Well, the cops are killing more people, but less of a big deal is being made about it.

It was the National Guard, Nixon's "tin soldiers", that did the killing at Kent State, not the police.

Of course, our police are becoming increasingly militarized, so maybe the comparison is not all that far off.

It's really a potato/potahto type of situation.

They're the guys with guns who are sent there to enforce the laws. It's not altogether relevant what you decided to name each of the particular groups.
 
The difference being that the National Guard have no law enforcement training, so they shouldn't be expected to properly do the kind of work that Nixon sent them to do.

There is, however, the expectation that the police actually have the proper training. Unfortunately, they continue to be given military equipment, and this puts them in a more military mindset.
 
It was the National Guard, Nixon's "tin soldiers", that did the killing at Kent State, not the police.

Of course, our police are becoming increasingly militarized, so maybe the comparison is not all that far off.

It's really a potato/potahto type of situation.

They're the guys with guns who are sent there to enforce the laws. It's not altogether relevant what you decided to name each of the particular groups.

Yes and no. Using the NG implies a much more serious breakdown of order.
 
It's really a potato/potahto type of situation.

They're the guys with guns who are sent there to enforce the laws. It's not altogether relevant what you decided to name each of the particular groups.

Yes and no. Using the NG implies a much more serious breakdown of order.

So does calling in SWAT. When you're talking about government forces with guns shooting people, it's generally moot which particular force did the shooting.
 
So does calling in SWAT. When you're talking about government forces with guns shooting people, it's generally moot which particular force did the shooting.

Only if understanding the situation is of no importance.

Like the understanding of the situation which was shown by the Governor who called in the National Guard to Kent State? You do realize that they weren't actually anti-American revolutionaries who's goal was to destroy higher education in Ohio, don't you? He didn't.
 
Only if understanding the situation is of no importance.

Like the understanding of the situation which was shown by the Governor who called in the National Guard to Kent State? You do realize that they weren't actually anti-American revolutionaries who's goal was to destroy higher education in Ohio, don't you? He didn't.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
Like the understanding of the situation which was shown by the Governor who called in the National Guard to Kent State? You do realize that they weren't actually anti-American revolutionaries who's goal was to destroy higher education in Ohio, don't you? He didn't.

Thanks for proving my point.

You were making the point that when National Guard troops are called in to perform policing functions at a time when there's no need to use the National Guard instead of the police, it's silly to draw a distinction between their roles?

My apologies. I missed that from your arguments. I'll make a point of reading them more closely in the future.
 
Thanks for proving my point.

You were making the point that when National Guard troops are called in to perform policing functions at a time when there's no need to use the National Guard instead of the police, it's silly to draw a distinction between their roles?

My apologies. I missed that from your arguments. I'll make a point of reading them more closely in the future.

You're quite the dancer.
 
You were making the point that when National Guard troops are called in to perform policing functions at a time when there's no need to use the National Guard instead of the police, it's silly to draw a distinction between their roles?

My apologies. I missed that from your arguments. I'll make a point of reading them more closely in the future.

You're quite the dancer.

My point is that the distinction between them is moot as it relates to the current discussion. If you're talking police, national guard troops brought in to perform a policing role, civilian volunteers who are deputized to work with the police or any other variation thereof, they should all be judged the same when they're acting in those roles.

When you bring the national guard in to reinforce the police officers, they are there in a policing function and the rules which govern them should be identical to the rules which govern every other cop. They are not there as soldiers.
 
You're quite the dancer.

My point is that the distinction between them is moot as it relates to the current discussion. If you're talking police, national guard troops brought in to perform a policing role, civilian volunteers who are deputized to work with the police or any other variation thereof, they should all be judged the same when they're acting in those roles.

When you bring the national guard in to reinforce the police officers, they are there in a policing function and the rules which govern them should be identical to the rules which govern every other cop. They are not there as soldiers.

NG units trained to maneuver and fire together are not aggregates of police officers. And, as you pointed out, why they were there at all is nontrivial.
 
My point is that the distinction between them is moot as it relates to the current discussion. If you're talking police, national guard troops brought in to perform a policing role, civilian volunteers who are deputized to work with the police or any other variation thereof, they should all be judged the same when they're acting in those roles.

When you bring the national guard in to reinforce the police officers, they are there in a policing function and the rules which govern them should be identical to the rules which govern every other cop. They are not there as soldiers.

NG units trained to maneuver and fire together are not aggregates of police officers. And, as you pointed out, why they were there at all is nontrivial.

It doesn't matter what their training is. When they are assigned there as police officers they need to be treated as police officers in regards to their roles, responsibilities and restrictions. If they lack the training for the roles they are being given, that's the fault of the people who sent them there and any liability for poor policework on their part needs to go up the chain. It does not count as an excuse for poor policework on their part.

You don't get to use the "it was my first day" excuse when you kill somebody. They have an assignment and part of that assignment is the rules of engagement which restrict their activities. Those rules need to be based on the rules which govern every other police officer, because that's what they are while they're there.
 
There seems to be some belief that Officer Friendly is an example of the police and GI Joe is an example of a soldier.

Officer Friendly was shot by a SWAT team and GI Joe got bomb by a drone.

Time to rethink what the differences are between the police and the army. They may not be as distinct as you think.
 
"Middle America" did not go to college back then.

Only the kids of well off parents did.

This is why going to college got the guys an exemption from the draft.

Guys who went to trade school or blue collar workers were the pool of draftees.

"Rich man's war, poor man's fight" as the old saying goes.

Honestly, the current generation thinks nothing of this event. If it even rings a bell.

Mass shootings on campuses is a horrific, though regular thing now.

A single incident like this over 50 years ago is just a blip.
 
"Middle America" did not go to college back then.

Only the kids of well off parents did.

This is why going to college got the guys an exemption from the draft.

Guys who went to trade school or blue collar workers were the pool of draftees.

"Rich man's war, poor man's fight" as the old saying goes.

Honestly, the current generation thinks nothing of this event. If it even rings a bell.

Mass shootings on campuses is a horrific, though regular thing now.

A single incident like this over 50 years ago is just a blip.

Point of order: 1970 is rather less than 50 years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom