Ed Markey: ‘Disarm’ All Police Officers of ‘Weapons of War,’ Ban Tear Gas

[Cathoholic]

To our law enforcement friends here.

(Most of you already knew this but) I’ve been telling you guys for years here the Democrats actions say “Disarm the police!”

This is just (the Democrats) taking away ONLY your rifles they will say
(they use the term “weapons of war” to fool voters.
But they know we don’t send soldiers into war with semi-auto rifles unless they are equipoed with select-fire full auto three-shot burst).

The Democrats will come for your pistols too.
The Democrat politicians will spare an “elite” small segment of armed police to guard . . . (Can you guess?) . . . . THEMSELVES.

The bad guys will still have their guns.
Public security won’t matter (or will matter very little) to the Democrats
as more and more of these politicians are hidden behind gated communities or personal “Walls” (like Hillary has).

It won’t matter to the Democrat politicians that want to disarm you, that the bad-guy gang leader, you helped put away, was threatening your family as he was led out of the courtroom in chains.

As long as these Democrats are “good to go”
with THEIR ARMED PROTECTION, it won’t matter.

That is WHY Nancy Pelosi unaccountably is illegally in a hair salon when it is not allowed for you and I or our families or whatever, is a very important story! Because it gives you an idea of the Democrat elitist mindset and worldview.

Pelosi used shuttered San Francisco hair salon for blow-out, owner calls it 'slap in the face' World News

How It’s Done: CBS Reporter Goes Against Grain, Torches Pelosi’s ‘Set-Up’ Claim in HaircutGate September 3, 2020 by Sister Toldjah While many in the mainstream media have predictably rushed to defend House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hypocritical Monday trip to a shuttered San Francisco hair salon for a haircut and highlights, at least one journalist has dared to go against the grain with critical comments condemning her actions and her excuse-making and blame games. San Francisco salon owner Eric…

Thank you law enforcement, for your service!

.

Ed Markey: ‘Disarm’ All Police Officers of ‘Weapons of War,’ Ban Tear Gas​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

ASHLEY OLIVER

14 Sep 2020

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) on Monday called to “disarm” all police officers of “weapons of war” and demanded a nationwide ban on various nonlethal forms of protection, including tear gas.

Markey, who recently won his primary race in Massachusetts as he seeks reelection to the U.S. Senate, wrote, “Portland police routinely attack peaceful protestors with brute force. We must disarm these officers, and every other police department in America, of weapons of war,” adding he supports a nationwide ban on tear gas and other nonlethal tools police use to protect themselves and community members.

Ed Markey: ‘Disarm’ All Police Officers of ‘Weapons of War,’ Ban Tear Gas

 

[Cathoholic]

Here is just one of the officers Markey wants to disarm (at least partially) . . .

. . . The chilling audio records the desperate call for help from the female LASD officer, a 31-year-old mother with a 6-year-old daughter, as she radios from “Compton PAX” — the local transit center — with the code “998,” for officer-involved shooting. Her speech is slurred and she struggles to find the words to convey to the dispatcher, but she manages to convey the message. . . .

. . . > Officer: 998, Compton PAX.

Dispatch: 602 Frank, you have traffic?

Second officer: 998, 998.

Officer: [Unintelligible]

Dispatch: 602 Frank, only. Your traffic?

Officer: Compton PAX, deputies down. Compton PAX! 998!

Dispatch: 602 Frank, I can’t copy you.

Officer: 998!

Dispatch: [Unclear] units, 602 Frank is advising a 998, Compton PAX, you’ll have units to respond in three or less.

Officer: [Unintelligible] 10-4.

Second officer: 998, 998, deputy shot in front of the head bleeding, female, Compton PAX, please…

The Los Angeles Times , which apparently also obtained the audio, noted similarly:

On the radio, a shaky voice mutters: “998 Compton Pax.”

Recognizing the code for a deputy-involved shooting, a dispatcher asks: “Just happened?”

“Compton Pax, deputies down,” the voice says, almost unintelligibly. “Compton Pax 998.”

Authorities have not yet released the names of the deputies. The LASD is offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the shooter.

Listen: Chilling Audio of L.A. Sheriff’s Deputy Calling for Help After Being Shot

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We must disarm these officers, and every other police department in America, of weapons of war,” adding he supports a nationwide ban on tear gas and other nonlethal tools police use to protect themselves and community members.

There would not be such calls for disarming the police if the police had used such measures more judiciously. A good example is how teargas was used for the convenience of President Trump to stand in front of a church waving a bible without even the courtesy of notifying the clergy in charge of that church that their church would be used for a photo op. That is not a good enough excuse to use teargas to disperse a crowd.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

There would not be such calls for disarming the police if the police had used such measures more judiciously.

And there ya have it.

Blame the victim (law enforcement) with a tiny minority of exceptions.

A good example is how teargas was used for the convenience of President Trump . . .

Their demonstration was lost as soon as they began to throw projectiles.

The police were right.

It is irrelevant WHY President Trump gets security.

Your Bible aspect criticism is not persuasive. At least to me.

 

[Balto1]

Blame the victim (law enforcement)

You had me going for a long time but you’re definitely doing a bit

 

[ATraveller]

Unarmed officers do exist!
Police in Britain (except Northern Ireland) and New Zealand do not usually carry guns.
Whether that works in the US is another question.

 

[Balto1]

It would work if American police were just responding to crimes, but terrorizing racial minorities requires frequent killings.

 

[ATraveller]

It would work if American police were just responding to crimes, but terrorizing racial minorities requires frequent killings.

It helps to have an objective look at problems rather than antagonising cops for political/ideology reasons.
Racial minorities tend to be poorer and therefore more likely to commit petty crimes and more likely to cross paths with police. American officers are trained in a manner to overreact. If white American were more likely to be poor than racial minorities, we would see more white people shot dead by American police officers given the wrong type of training.

 

[Cathoholic]

Balto1 . . .

It would work if American police were just responding to crimes, but terrorizing racial minorities requires frequent killings.

The police as a whole, are NOT “terrorizing minorities”.

What you have done here (hopefully unwittingly) is taken a small sample of bad police, and universalized their bad behavior.

Racists use that same broad-brush against people of color.

They know of a black guy who was a bad guy,
and paint that picture against all blacks.

Some of them use Bernie Madoff, to attack our Jewish friends and family members too.

An Irishman or Indian who was a drunk, now morphs into all of them being drunks.

Italians are Mafia. Germans are Nazis, etc. etc.

All these are just as wrong to do that.

You probably didn’t see it before
(because that is the bigoted line
the MSM feeds to us
every day).

But . . .

Now that you know though,
I want to invite you Balto1,
to retract what you have said against our law enforcement people
(some of which may be in our own families).

 

[WingedHussar]

Disarm the cops and you will see more people taking the laws into their own hands. What is a weapon of war anyway? Tear gas is banned in warfare so by definition it is not a weapon of war.

Come to think of it, calling less-lethal weapons “weapons of war” shows a supreme misunderstanding of warfare. As General Patton put it, the purpose of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his.

 

[Victoria33]

There would not be such calls for disarming the police if the police had used such measures more judiciously. A good example is how teargas was used for the convenience of President Trump to stand in front of a church waving a bible without even the courtesy of notifying the clergy in charge of that church that their church would be used for a photo op. That is not a good enough excuse to use teargas to disperse a crowd.

And $50 million dollars of businesses have been burned down in Minneapolis, protesters did that too. A good example. So, your suggestion is anarchy? I’m glad that tear gas was used to disperse protesters, that church was set on fire previously.

Your facts are wrong, the protesters were asked to clear hours before the President went to that church.

 

[Cathoholic]

Chicago Police Superintendent: Attacks On Officers Are Up ‘Five Times’ Over Previous Years​

By Emily Zanotti

•

Sep 14, 2020 DailyWire.com

Chicago police superintendent David Brown told reporters Monday that attacks on police officers are up “five times” over previous years amid a spike in shootings that has left the city reeling.

Last week, 72 people were shot and wounded in Chicago and 18 people were killed, a slight increase over 2019. Overall, though, the summer has been a deadly one for Chicago residents; murders and shootings are each up 52% over last year, according to the Chicago Police Department’s official statistics.

Brown noted that Chicago police officers are being targeted at a rate five times higher than in “any previous year” in the city.

“Dozens of Chicago police officers have been shot or shot at so far this year — including as recently as this weekend . . . .

https://www.dailywire.com/news/chicago-police-superintendent-attacks-on-officers-are-up-five-times-over-previous-years

 

[signit]

Speaking of Sen. Markey:

Markey is up for reelection this year and faced a difficult primary challenge from someone named Kennedy who was expected to win on the basis of his famous family name.

Markey supported the Black Lives Matter movement, but not once in any of the seven debates did he say anything supporting law enforcement.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

I suppose these particular Senate seats are shoo-ins for Democrats so the primary was the real election for this seat hence Markey now feels safe in uttering specious things like that.

So he wants to strip “weapons of war” from the citizenry. Him first, he can start with his protection detail. Protection for him, but not for us. We’re the little people, remember? Watch what they do for themselves, not what they say for us.

When the police aren’t allowed to protect us, what the heck do the police naysayers think is going to happen? That we’re all going to stand down and sing “kumbaya” around the campfire with the criminals and the rioters? I understand there’s a nice bridge on the Charles for sale …

 

[signit]

I suppose these particular Senate seats are shoo-ins for Democrats so the primary was the real election for this seat hence Markey now feels safe in uttering specious things like that.

“Shoo-in” is right.

In the primary the two of them fell all over themselves trying to show that they’re more “progressive” than the other. And of course he repeatedly called Trump a “racist.”

Interesting, though; Markey faces a Republican opponent in the general election. The opponent has joked that the Democratic party today is the party not of “JFK” but of “AOC,” and he’s trying to appeal, oddly enough, to the supporters of his primary opponent who voted on the basis of the Kennedy name (older, less educated, etc.) but who might be less progressive.

So he wants to strip “weapons of war” from the citizenry. Him first, he can start with his protection detail. Protection for him, but not for us. We’re the little people, remember? Watch what they do for themselves, not what they say for us.

Especially in the case of someone like Markey who owns homes in both Massachusetts and Maryland and spends so much time in his Maryland suburb that some say he shouldn’t even be considered a Massachusetts resident.

When the police aren’t allowed to protect us, what the heck do the police naysayers think is going to happen? That we’re all going to stand down and sing “kumbaya” around the campfire with the criminals and the rioters? I understand there’s a nice bridge on the Charles for sale …

Or, the example I like, they can always send a social worker.

When they get a 911 call for a domestic violence incident, by all means, they can send a social worker with a master’s degree to give the perpetrator the help he needs.

 

[Sarcelle]

The not all cops argument doesn’t work. It didn’t work for the Catholic Church when a very small minority of priests were sexual abusers. The Church could not get away with the meager excuse of “not all priests”. The Church had to take a hard look at how it chose and formed men for the priesthood. The police should do the same.

There is something wrong with police training and hiring if we keep seeing cops shoot first and ask question later.

The problem is systemic. I don’t mean systemic racism but there is something wrong in the training of cops when they are taught to see the general public as the enemy, when they are taught to engage with the public as though dealing with an enemy combatant.

I asked my uncle who is a retired cop in California, and he agreed with me on this.

 

[Cathoholic]

Sarcelle . . .

The not all cops argument doesn’t work. It didn’t work for the Catholic Church when a very small minority of priests were sexual abusers.

Are you suggesting it WAS CORRECT for the media
to paint ALL PRIESTS as homosexual predators?

 

[JonNC]

There would not be such calls for disarming the police if the police had used such measures more judiciously.

Where have the police used firearms injudiciously ?

A good example is how teargas was used for the convenience of President Trump to stand in front of a church waving a bible without even the courtesy of notifying the clergy in charge of that church

Did the fascistic Marxist mob that burned that church notify the clergy of their plans ?
That’s the reason police have those tools.

 

[JonNC]

It would work if American police were just responding to crimes, but terrorizing racial minorities requires frequent killings.

That would be the progressive mayors.

Statistically, far more whites are killed by police.

Number of people killed by police by ethnicity U.S. 2023 | Statista

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Where have the police used firearms injudiciously ?

This is not a serious question. Such lists have been posted many times.

LeafByNiggle:

A good example is how teargas was used for the convenience of President Trump to stand in front of a church waving a bible without even the courtesy of notifying the clergy in charge of that church

Did the fascistic Marxist mob that burned that church notify the clergy of their plans ?

Irrelevant to the question of whether the police that day should have used teargas to clear a way for a Presidential photo-op.

That’s the reason police have those tools.

That justifies using those tools when rioters are burning that church. It does not justify using those tools the next day.