You can see some of the equipment your police are stockpiling here:
Looks like my county has four pages of 5.56 rifles. That seems like more than we need for our area. Also, not one, but two bomb disposal robots. Do we really need two? Estimated values are a complete joke. $120 for a 5.56 rifle? I'll take a case!
The mortar carrier is basically an APC that can carry the mortar and the crew that operates it. They didn't necessarily accept delivery of the mortar itself.
It is worth noting that not everything listed is purchased by police, it is basically everything under the 1033 program, so some military purchases are mixed in. In Florida there is a county with a military base that purchased 8 Apache helicopters.
That said, some of these purchases are odd and warrant more explanation. I can understand a $16k mobile bath unit for disaster relief, but I can't seem to figure out what a $52k "ENGINE,DIESEL" is for.
My county got a bunch of filing cabinets, desks, trucks, rifles, a rigid inflatable boat, and a couple of diesel generators. Also two bomb disposal robots (hey, why not). No tanks. No APCs. Were they late to the party, or didn't requisition them? No idea.
My county got an armored personal carrier. I live about .75 miles from the county seat buildings, I see it out there all the time.
Could there be situations where it is helpful for the police to do the kind of things we need them to do? Yeah, I can see that.
Would it be a substantial distraction of time and focus away from the stuff that the sheriff should be doing 99.99% of the time? Uh, yeah, I can see that also.
Could it lead to "I have a hammer so that must be a nail" influences in judgement that result in an escalation when a better approach might be to stand back and wait things out? Yeah, I can see that too, and that isn't a criticism of the local police force (who I think is great), I'd be subject to the same mistake if I was in their role.
Its the same reason I am the pinnacle of care and responsibility when I am driving my Saab around, but I somehow get magically transformed into a giddy 14 year old in a go cart when I drive my wife's Mini Cooper S. They just do that.
The threats to the US and her citizens are not static things. Threats are dynamics, they change with time, and they call for a plethora of dynamic intervention methods.
When $hit hits the fan, you don't even want LEO's to have the option of responding in a timely manner by rolling up in an APC? When a cop gets pinned down in a gunfight, he should just have to wait for the National Guard to mobilize just to come rescue his ass?
Regarding the, "i have a hammer" thing... good grief. I have a small armory at my house. Have I ever thought about using it against other people just because I can? NO. The US military has every type of weapon you can imagine. Does it go around getting in gunfights in the US just because it has weapons? NO.
I understand, oversight, caution, all that stuff, but you don't wait until an emergency to decide, "huh, I should have prepared for this". Especially if you're not serving yourself, but the people of your jurisdiction.
For anyone worried about Barry calling your local police station and saying, "Code 42, we're kicking in martial law, you're cleared hot...".. Why would you not also be opposed to the US Military owning those same (and better) weapons? If the resident decided it was time for a hostile police state... wouldn't he just utilize the army? (no way! US soldiers would refuse!) (wouldn't about the same percentage of LEO's?)
OK, I get it, cops are bad, they don't serve people, they only like issuing speeding tickets. Get over it. Like it or not, you get to lay down your head and rest at night as a direct result of law enforcement in this country.
And I'd MUCH rather see surplus military gear get pushed to our very own LEO's than given to some third world "ally" who later decides to use our own military gear against us.
I have my doubts, especially when talking about the leadership positions.
The military is the one thing that people tend to use as an example of what government does best. Sadly that same military has a common acronym for "situation normal".
The bottom line is that the military's roll is killing people. The police should have a different roll. The military make bad police. The police make bad military. Our founders understood this. That's why the military is not to be used to police the people.
The bottom line is that the military's roll is killing people.
I would argue that less than 10% of the armed services are involved in direct combat. And fewer than that have killed people.
Let's look at the situation in Afghanistan. We went in, we kicked ass, now we're transitioning everything over to the foreign nationals. We (the military) are playing the role of policemen, diplomats, political advisers, doctors, teachers, and most importantly, the welfare office to give money to people who would love to kill us.
"The military" encompasses a much broader spectrum than your words convey.
Sorry for the rant.
Back on the Afghanistan thing - right now, as the situation stands, the Taliban is a gang. There are gang members in all these little bands all across the country. They have lines of supply, lines of communication, they have dead drop sites. They're a regular band of organized criminals. And they should be dealt with as such. What is going on, on the ground, is police work. Finding, closing with, and prosecuting the criminals (with the occasional shootout or IED strike).
The afghan army is still being utilized, because the police force is too small, to fight the taliban with any success. But it is police work.
It would be the same if there were gangs stateside conducting ambushes or raids or doing anything tactical. And it is a fact that there are tactical operations going on on our southern border. And the threat of more if/when Isis gets their way.
2nd amendment. What is the problem with representatives of the people being armed to confront any form of threat? We live in an age in which the defence is becoming more important to all civilised societies.
No surprise about the Broward Co. sheriff's office. They have, for many, many years now been seen by the public as thugs!
Many, many investigations of BSO over the years. Thankful for the video showing the public how many of them don't get it and laugh about their treachery!
Going by Froggy's link. Our county bought 50 rifles, 10 pickup trucks, and 10 shotguns. Just because I was curious, I looked up Fulton county (by far the most corrupt) they bought 32 pages of stuff!
Torquhd, I do get your point, but even though the bulk of the military is support, and it DOES have a powerful role in the US in disaster relief, a US Army Infantryman is trained and equipped to defeat the enemy, to be more deadly and effective... to a degree seldom seen in history.
The M.P.'s are trained for police work.... sort of.. we have a local unit that is constantly deployed in the Sandbox and the Rock Pile and would be perfect and expert for dealing with a wide range of situations.
But they are trained for Occupying force. And we don't do that very good, partly politically, partly by native temperament.
You want the military to be useful. You do not want them to Occupy America.
Infantry, Cooks, Truck Drivers....Not trained for police work. NOT who you want dealing with drunken domestic abuse cases.... hold on, let me take that back. Hmm. I may have to re think my position.
Torquehd, I distinguish between the police and the military because I see them as two different tools for two different problems.
When I send in the police, my goal is to deal with the citenzry, mostly civilian and mostly innocent, to solve a domestic problem (by force if necessary).
When I send in the military, it is to achieve a particular objective at all costs and with all necessary force and escalation.
I have always gotten along great with cops, I bear them no resentment at all.
Unless our caliphate-loving resident decides to nip ISIS in the bud (well, too late for that, but you know what I mean), we all need to be expecting mines here soon.
Carrying a concealed weapon won't protect you against IED's. But it can help protect you and your family when the monkeys decide they want to start playing with guns here.
Radical* Islam... coming soon to a theater near you. I hope you're ready. God knows your local law office will hardly be.
*true to the teachings of the Qran; not the pacifist, watered-down, unfaithful muslims who are in direct violation of the laws of allah.
Torquehd, for my part, it's not "are the police prepared for terrorist attack?" I don't think they are, no matter how many mine resistant APC's they have. I'm pretty darn sure the FBI isn't prepared for terrorist attack.
It's that police should be the thin blue line.
Not Imperial Storm Troopers.
The use of "tacticool" dress and masks during home invasion raids is problematic to me. I can certainly understand the body armor. There are situations and neighborhoods where body armor is a great idea. I've worked in those 'hoods. I've had machine gun fire go off less than a block away. ( Jamaican gangs were displacing the Puerto Rican gangs at the time ) It's much quieter, now. Just the 2-3 times a week drive by shootings.
There are even situations where undercover police should wear masks or they lose the ability to BE undercover.
But if you are setting up to raid a small time dealer's house ( for example ) why is the whole platoon of hopefully SWAT trained police breaking down doors with masks on?
If a guy smashed down your door and waved a gun at you screaming, and he is wearing a mask and does not have a familiar uniform on, is he not fair game? ( actually according to a recent court case, yes, he is )
I don't like Officer Friendly, who I respect and on occasion am annoyed by ( my fault if I'm driving faster than the speed limit ) to become the above pictured faceless Imperial secret police.
Plus I really don't want to have them run over my Propane tank with a Mortar Carrier ( which has crappy vision windows ) when they get the address wrong and go to bust the Cocaine farmer across the street. ( or whatever they think he's doing )
Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 - 09:06 am:
Won't our military be too busy responding to other countries crisis that's why the police will need to be ready for the bad guys. I think they coming and maybe they getting ready for taste of Mumbia, alittle tad of Beslan with second helping of Ukraine and maybe some Iraq on top.
Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2014 - 01:40 am:
The police should be police.
Let's start by defining the word (or the role of) "Police".
"the civil force of a national or local government, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order."
"(of a police force) have the duty of maintaining law and order in or for (an area or event)."
Police are to maintain law, detect and prevent crimes, and maintain public order. This includes everything from preventing motorists from driving dangerously, to keeping dangerous and illegal drugs off the streets, to dealing with sociopaths (or simply, the morally stupid) who use violence and murder to accomplish their ideas.
Police have a huge burden to bear; they have a vast job description. They encounter a multitude of situations, and the tools of their trade may be anything from a notepad (for issuing citations) to armored vehicles and carbines (for dealing with wackos with machine guns).
Overall, the police are the uniformed men who patrol the streets on a daily basis, and are often the first responders to crisis situations.
I would like to draw attention to a key word in that definition: "civil". Police are citizens who deal with citizens.
Let's look now at the role of the military.
"of, relating to, or characteristic of soldiers or armed forces."
"the armed forces of a country."
Police (law enforcement officers) are really members of a branch of the military. They are armed, they are essentially soldiers who must follow orders. They are volunteer public servants who risk their lives in the interest of the population of the United States of America (or whatever country you may be reading this in).
I agree Xdigitalx, the "military" (or the army, navy, marines, airforce, and the other various, less publicized government agencies), should be focused on threats of a foreign nature.
Basically, if the threat or criminal activity originates from a US citizen, the police should be responsible for interdicting. If the threat does not come from within the realm of bonafide US citizens, the military should respond.
I think all illegal activity which occurs in the United States (or whatever host nation) should begin with police action, unless proven otherwise. There are a host of variables which should designate whether the police or military put boots on the ground. One of the biggest variables would be a threshold of violence (or a threshold of imminent danger). If credible, plausible intelligence dictates that the police are unable to handle a situation (which puts US citizens at risk) in a safe, timely manner, then I'm OK with the military stepping in.
But, there's still the issue of politics. Once the military steps into the picture and engages, martial law is in effect. Martial law is a huge "buzz word" or attention-getter. The governing authorities are instantly assumed to be guilty of crimes against humanity.
So... for the flood of illegal aliens who break the law and enter our country illegally... should we respond with police... or martial law?
I know which force we currently respond with, which is why we have been unable to secure our borders. And I know which force I would respond with... which is why I'd never be allowed to run for any type of office.
Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2014 - 04:41 pm:
I'm not claiming any expertise on the subject here. I'm neither military or police, But I have been to a few local police sponsored lectures on the lessons learned from terrorism and how they apply to police roles in America. Xdigital mentions Mumbai, Beslan, and lets throw in the Kenya Westgate mall. In all of those cases, there were combat trained attackers, determined to kill as many innocents as possible before meeting their own end. Taking police and other forces with them was just a bonus. A standard equipped police force would be poorly matched against a force of even a handful of hardened, equipped, trained combatants. Since Columbine, when an active shooter call comes in, the police are now trained to engage immediately. Historically this almost always causes the attacker to give up, take their own life, or have the police do it. In any case the violence is ended. In the case of a Mumbai style attack, the first cop on the scene would be over-matched, and out-gunned. There seems a strong likelihood they may not survive, but might be able to inform the other officers responding that this is not a "typical" untrained, lone, active shooter. Those officers would then need to equip themselves for a genuine combat role, not a police role. Unless we are willing to have the National Guard Armorys, staffed 24/7, trained, and equipped to respond to such a threat, I don't see an alternative.
I also agree that there is a tendency for police forces to use it just cuz they have it, That may be a bit heavy handed to my mind, but if I were on the cop side of the door, I bet I'd want an overwhelming force, to make sure I got home safe at the end of the day too.
