Harrisburg would be a contender too, since you know...
but should Allentown have one?
Homeowners Kicked Out Of House For Child's Drugs |
||
Homeowners kicked out of house for child's drugs
Harrisburg would be a contender too, since you know...
but should Allentown have one? Jetackuu said: » Harrisburg would be a contender too, since you know... but should Allentown have one? Harrisburg is ***. There's some buildings there full of government employees, service industry in the immediate area of those buildings to feed the employees during the work day... ... ...and then there's a 7-11 and some cow pastures. Seriously. Harrisburg sucks. Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Jetackuu said: » hostage situations: fbi? I can understand big cities but damn. But I think we agree on this, just wanted to clarify. SWAT teams are generally local in nature, while FBI is supposed to be national only. Also, I would understand 2-3 SWAT forces per state, and only limited to the major cities of that state (obviously each capital should have 1 SWAT team). In Pennsylvania, for instance, should be Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Erie*. The state police's groups should be handling the rest. *Maybe Erie, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because some crazy ***happens up there. Using Texas as an example, the only cities that should need a SWAT team would be: Dallas, Fort Worth (yes, they need a separate SWAT team), Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi*, Laredo, Amarillo*, El Paso, Midland* *Disclaimer: These cities noted more than likely do not have the crime needed to substantiate the need for a SWAT team. Corpus Christi is a port town, so their need is purely trade related, but Amarillo and Midland has no major importance to justify one outside of local crime. Border towns like Laredo and El Paso would need one because Mexican crime is crazy. Amarillo's biggest threat is Oklahoma..... Asura.Kingnobody said: » Using Texas as an example, the only cities that should need a SWAT team would be: Dallas, Fort Worth (yes, they need a separate SWAT team), Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi*, Laredo, Amarillo*, El Paso, Midland* *Disclaimer: These cities noted more than likely do not have the crime needed to substantiate the need for a SWAT team. Corpus Christi is a port town, so their need is purely trade related, but Amarillo and Midland has no major importance to justify one outside of local crime. Border towns like Laredo and El Paso would need one because Mexican crime is crazy. Amarillo's biggest threat is Oklahoma (and prairie dogs)..... FTFY. Emphasize Laredo with bold, and add Brownsville and El Paso in bold! Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Jetackuu said: » hostage situations: fbi? I can understand big cities but damn. But I think we agree on this, just wanted to clarify. SWAT teams are generally local in nature, while FBI is supposed to be national only. Also, I would understand 2-3 SWAT forces per state, and only limited to the major cities of that state (obviously each capital should have 1 SWAT team). In Pennsylvania, for instance, should be Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Erie*. The state police's groups should be handling the rest. *Maybe Erie, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because some crazy ***happens up there. Using Texas as an example, the only cities that should need a SWAT team would be: Dallas, Fort Worth (yes, they need a separate SWAT team), Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Corpus Christi*, Laredo, Amarillo*, El Paso, Midland* *Disclaimer: These cities noted more than likely do not have the crime needed to substantiate the need for a SWAT team. Corpus Christi is a port town, so their need is purely trade related, but Amarillo and Midland has no major importance to justify one outside of local crime. Border towns like Laredo and El Paso would need one because Mexican crime is crazy. Amarillo's biggest threat is Oklahoma..... Texas is a difficult case for this discussion, at least imo, because of the current Mexican drug war going on (you know; a actual drug war. Not this "war on drugs" we fight here in America rather than approaching drugs in a reasonable, rational manner). But yeah. Those border cities don't need SWAT. They need....well, they need Mexico to figure its problems out, but a huge part of their problem is American consumers of drugs. Meh. Off topic now. But yeah. Those border towns definitely need something protecting American citizens. Brownsville isn't that bad (yet).
Of all of the border cities, I only see El Paso and Laredo as actually needing to sustain a SWAT team. Just from the Mexican Mafia alone. But prairie dogs? I don't kn..... .........ok....maybe then...... Allentown, as Jet mentioned (which, I'm actually surprised to look up and find out Allentown has passed Erie as the third-largest city in the state).
Other cities that may feel entitled to their own force could include Reading, Lancaster, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, Bethlehem, Altoona, York, and State College*. That's all of the cities with 40,000+ people. Some of them could probably share forces, or -- a more appropriate response in my opinion -- is have the State Police forces situated in triangulated locations between/among them. *State College doesn't necessarily need SWAT for the college kids, but they could probably do with a well-trained riot police force, given that Saturdays during football season means 100k+ people in Beaver Stadium, making it supplant Erie and Allentown for third-most people in a given place in the state. Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » But yeah. Those border cities don't need SWAT. They need....well, they need Mexico to figure its problems out, but a huge part of their problem is American consumers of drugs. But yeah...you walk next to a car full of decapitated heads....that....well........ Yeah, don't want to talk about that..... Border towns do not just need a SWAT team, they need their own military base.... Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » But yeah. Those border cities don't need SWAT. They need....well, they need Mexico to figure its problems out, but a huge part of their problem is American consumers of drugs. But yeah...you walk next to a car full of decapitated heads....that....well........ Yeah, don't want to talk about that..... Border towns do not just need a SWAT team, they need their own military base.... My original thought was along the lines of miltary vehciles with mounted weapons, yes. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Brownsville isn't that bad (yet). Of all of the border cities, I only see El Paso and Laredo as actually needing to sustain a SWAT team. Just from the Mexican Mafia alone. But prairie dogs? I don't kn..... .........ok....maybe then...... Terrifyingly adorable! Maybe we should send them to Guatemala to hash things out with MS13. We should probably send some river otters to keep the prairie dogs in check with their tantalizingly playful aqua acrobatics. I've been to Reading, and yeah: *** all of PA dude, :P
Jetackuu said: » I've been to Reading, and yeah: *** all of PA dude, :P I love my state. Very few places in the world I'd rather live. I'm just not overly fond of a lot of the people here. And unless you've been north of I-80, you've not experienced the better parts of the state. The geographical state itself, I mean. Obviously there's not much as far as people go up that way, but that's part of why I love it so much. Praire dogs are HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. you can shoot one, & his buddies come up out of the ground after 5-10 mins to eat their fallen comrade. then you shoot them. it's quite ridiculous.
Siren.Mosin said: » Praire dogs are HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. you can shoot one, & his buddies come up out of the ground after 5-10 mins to eat their fallen comrade. then you shoot them. it's quite ridiculous. that's awesome volkom said: » Siren.Mosin said: » Praire dogs are HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. you can shoot one, & his buddies come up out of the ground after 5-10 mins to eat their fallen comrade. then you shoot them. it's quite ridiculous. that's awesome Hey. It's dead now. Now it's just food. Pragmatism at its finest. Siren.Mosin said: » Praire dogs are HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. you can shoot one, & his buddies come up out of the ground after 5-10 mins to eat their fallen comrade. then you shoot them. it's quite ridiculous. They cannibalize each other?!? Well, now I don't want to risk the river otters. Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Siren.Mosin said: » Praire dogs are HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. you can shoot one, & his buddies come up out of the ground after 5-10 mins to eat their fallen comrade. then you shoot them. it's quite ridiculous. They cannibalize each other?!? Well, now I don't want to risk the river otters. Otters are terrible! Adorable, too. But terrible! Terrible Otters Siren.Mosin said: » Otters are awesome. Pictures and videos of otters doing cute things are awesome. They can be pretty evil, though. :x Edit: Don't be too worried. Ducks are apparently the biggest rapists of the animal kingdom. I just go ahead and tell myself that's just the ducks I don't like. They're like people. It's only some of them. ._.; Ducks are terrible according to your link, Ramy. That monkey got what was coming to him.
EDIT: This thread took a surprising turn! Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Ducks are terrible according to your link, Ramy. That monkey got what was coming to him. haha! You didn't look! (Unless you're getting a different side bar than me). This isn't the "I *** love science" link! Though I've read that too. Anyhow. I've gotta head out. Dentist appointment. Feel free to bash my state legislature without me.~ Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Feel free to bash my state legislature without me.~ Interesting follow up article:
Come and Take It Libertarians fight for people whose property was seized by the police. Quote: On Aug. 11 the D.C.-based libertarian Institute for Justice charged that Philadelphia operated a “veritable machine” of civil forfeiture, which violated the due process clause of the Constitution. Fenrir.Candlejack said: » Kell said: » Quote: It's not hard to get a warrant. It's not hard to get a conviction with the proper evidence. The authorities just want free stuff without having to work for it. They're no different than the looters in Ferguson, MO. Exactly. If they keep going the way they're going, with companies like Desert Snow helping to push their methods of theft, they're going to end up with a self fulfilling prophecy on their hands. After all, their current methods worked out so very well for the British over 200 years ago. Citizens will assume the police are there to rob them, and they will defend themselves and their property, most likely making use of their 2nd amendment rights. Maybe Indiana has the right idea with their new law permitting their citizens to defend themselves. IDK. A friend of mine in the Army has actually said he wouldn't be surprised if the military has to put down the police at some point in this country. Citizen A, being a so-called "law abiding citizen", duly armed and "defending his home and property using his second amendment rights", shoots and kills a cop who just has a mistaken address on file while trying to serve a warrant. Citizen A then becomes a criminal, a "cop-killer", who ends up having to engage in a gun battle with an entire police department and losing his own life in the process after being outgunned against a well-equipped police force. And, if it doesn't end with citizen A's death, he'll more than likely end up rotting the rest of his life away in prison while being stripped of his second amendment rights as a convicted felon (murderer). Seriously, you guntards think a bullet in the head is the answer for all of life's problems. Man the *** up, change your thinking, put the gun away. There's a time and place for such thinking to be correct, dealing with police officers is not one of those times. If the police could be trusted to follow the rules and keep cool heads, this could apply. In large, they don't. It may take more than a few of these kinds of shootouts before the general public starts to get the message. If people are willing to become martyrs for the cause, so be it, recent generations have become complacent. We haven't had to actually fight for our freedoms in a very long time. Will you be the establishment apologist when they break down your door? I'm not a gun nut by a long shot, but I see nothing wrong with defending your home from ANYONE who enters unlawfully/forcibly with the intent to deprive you of property or freedom. Fenrir.Candlejack said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Fenrir.Candlejack said: » Kell said: » Quote: It's not hard to get a warrant. It's not hard to get a conviction with the proper evidence. The authorities just want free stuff without having to work for it. They're no different than the looters in Ferguson, MO. Exactly. If they keep going the way they're going, with companies like Desert Snow helping to push their methods of theft, they're going to end up with a self fulfilling prophecy on their hands. After all, their current methods worked out so very well for the British over 200 years ago. Citizens will assume the police are there to rob them, and they will defend themselves and their property, most likely making use of their 2nd amendment rights. Maybe Indiana has the right idea with their new law permitting their citizens to defend themselves. IDK. A friend of mine in the Army has actually said he wouldn't be surprised if the military has to put down the police at some point in this country. Citizen A, being a so-called "law abiding citizen", duly armed and "defending his home and property using his second amendment rights", shoots and kills a cop who just has a mistaken address on file while trying to serve a warrant. Citizen A then becomes a criminal, a "cop-killer", who ends up having to engage in a gun battle with an entire police department and losing his own life in the process after being outgunned against a well-equipped police force. And, if it doesn't end with citizen A's death, he'll more than likely end up rotting the rest of his life away in prison while being stripped of his second amendment rights as a convicted felon (murderer). Seriously, you guntards think a bullet in the head is the answer for all of life's problems. Man the *** up, change your thinking, put the gun away. There's a time and place for such thinking to be correct, dealing with police officers is not one of those times. If the police could be trusted to follow the rules and keep cool heads, this could apply. In large, they don't. It may take more than a few of these kinds of shootouts before the general public starts to get the message. If people are willing to become martyrs for the cause, so be it, recent generations have become complacent. We haven't had to actually fight for our freedoms in a very long time. Will you be the establishment apologist when they break down your door? I'm not a gun nut by a long shot, but I see nothing wrong with defending your home from ANYONE who enters unlawfully/forcibly with the intent to deprive you of property or freedom. /golfclap Seriously, try to read the whole post before shooting your mouth off, sperglord. Let alone the entire goddamn concept that by performing raids, instead of simply serving a warrant, they are again escalating conflicts by default. The point of these raids is supposed to acquire evidence in order to convict people in a court of law, that would otherwise be destroyed. If this can't be done without the risk of killing any of the residents, then in most cases this should simply be performed. Hell, you could drastically reduce the likelyhood of any kind of conflict simply by monitoring the residence for a relatively short duration, in order to know what the hell you are getting into, and a generally good idea of who is at the premises at any given time. |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|