| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
I'm with the ACLU on this one. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/aclu-poli ce-militarization-swat_n_2813334.html
An aside: Earlier in the article the HufferPost reporter attributes legislation under Reagan to Reagan, under Clinton though, it was the congress who enacted it.
Note the begrudging parenthetical. <sigh> | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
This stuff makes my skin crawl. Where is Gordon Freeman when you need him?  | ||
| Bigblock |
in the process of graduating from "Police State" To full- on "Military Dictatorship"? Feels like it on some days, doesn't it? | ||
| Alfau |
Consequence. | ||
| Two_seasons |
Been noticing this for a long time in SE WI. This is alarming and dangerous to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! I personally found out by just how much I am secure in my own home recently  | ||
| Torquehd |
I'm confused what you are disgruntled about. The lack of oversight? The existence and funding of SWAT teams? | ||
| Blake |
Try reading the article. The fed govt is providing military warfighting equipment like armored vehicles, tanks, machine guns even to small local police forces. That combined with a massive increase in the number of heavy handed SWAT style raids for capturing nonviolent offenders. There are MUCH smarter ways to conduct police work than outfitting for warfare. | ||
| Torquehd |
There are MUCH smarter ways to conduct police work than outfitting for warfare. I read the article before posting, glad LEO's are getting financial support, and the tools they need to deal with dangerous and organized criminals. Love them or hate them, the land is safer because of LEO's. Sure you'll have some bad apples who abuse power, as with any office of power. Law enforcement work is sometimes necessarily warfare (counterinsurgency, for example). What alternative would you propose for dealing with barricaded shooters, and cartels and gangs who use FM7-8 tactics? Drone strikes, perhaps? Or hire the standing army to go in and kill US citizens? That surely couldn't cause any problems. We shouldn't have our police limited to batons and six shooters that shoot rubber bullets and rainbow dust when we have active threats in the oven. When ISIS goes hot in the US, we will need SWAT teams to rise up and meet the threat. When all these south american immigrants help smuggle their cartel buddies across the border, what will we be doing? Downgrading our already insufficient police force? | ||
| Blake |
>>> We shouldn't have our police limited to batons and six shooters that shoot rubber bullets and rainbow dust Nice straw man you attacked there. Maybe pull out your battle tank to finish him off. If we need to conduct warfare, then call up the guard. That's not the job of America's police. http://youtu.be/w6P2WATPmjU There are much worse examples and they are becoming a trend. | ||
| Torquehd |
Alright, we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe, here on American soil, dealing with American (or illegal alien) criminals, it is the job of the police. They are the first responders available for any type of incident. The gaurd doesn't sit around waiting for a phonecall, to roll on a minute's notice. The guard doesn't patrol the streets and any SOP's for conducting stateside war operations are probably still on the same shelf they were set on in 1970. (There are a few minute exceptions that you'll never hear about). And I really don't like the idea of turning the Army loose in America for anything other than emergency aid. It gets way too politically ugly when a US soldier has orders to kill another American. The political landscape (for conducting military type operations on US soil)is just different for police than it is for the military. If North Korean troops sailed up and stormed the shores of huntington beach, that would be one thing. A gang of criminals breaking the law on American soil is a different matter. Like I said, there needs to be oversight. The people who make the decisions to raid a house need to be held accountable if they hit the wrong house. But, an occasional erroneous raid is better than no ability to respond to security threats. But, we can agree to disagree. | ||
| Two_seasons |
The police are supposed to "protect and serve". When was the last time you actually believed that about your "community" police force. It used to be that if you had an issue in your neighborhood, you'd flag down a squad by whistle or waving of your arms. That was when your local police actually were talking with the community. Now, when you want to communicate with the police, you'll be doing that through dispatch. Our local police dept. chief made an asinine statement a couple of years ago re: CCW. He said that those on the CCW list when pulled over, would have to come out of their vehicle with their hands up and out. When I asked the chief about gangbangers NOT being on any CCW list, you know, the real threat, I then was "confusing" the issue". No, I was telling the chief that I am a law abiding taxpayer who objects to being treated as a threat. Years ago, we had the "tazer debate" in our community. Our police union told us they needed this tool to protect them and the public from deadly force. When I countered with "it may do harm to a citizen" I was told the facts don't support my argument. Today there are more facts and the fact is that tazers do indeed harm and many times kill citizens. I am tired, as an active citizen of the USA, of being held as a threat to our local police dept and this great nation, which I proudly served. Today our local police are seen as menacing and threatening to our citizens! Finally, the police are in our communities to interact with the public, not to counter a terrorist group. Leave that to the military. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Sure you'll have some bad apples who abuse power, as with any office of power. Taking British police as an example, as Britain is very much doing the same with its policing, the problem isn't the bad apples. The problem is losing those values of traditional policing where these values are much better served (most of the time) than the more clinically cold military style alienation of police to citizen. Rocket in England | ||
| Aesquire |
The Peelers ( England ) STARTED the idea that police were not the army. That the Citizen need not fear the police since they were citizens themselves, and Not an Occupying Army. That is why they wore Blue instead of Army Red. Rocket has it right on this one. | ||
| Brumbear |
I do not see a need for the Police to be up armed other than perhaps better side arms. And of course better personal body armor when available. We have National Guard and Army Reserve units for more back up. I don't see a need for every town to sport a SOG with assault style tactics. If one needs them the Guard should have a couple full time units on stand by. | ||
| Glitch |
 | ||
| Reepicheep |
I'm with Rocket on this one, and I think Ferris said it also. When you are given too many hammers, everything starts to look like a nail. | ||
| Rocket_in_uk |
Rocket has it right on this one. Oh what, like I passed a multiple choice questionnaire  Rocket in England | ||
| Reepicheep |
Even a blind squirrel...  | ||
| Pwnzor |
Even a dog's ass gets sunshine once in a while. I personally don't think most cops will try to subjugate the populace, they simply will not stand for it. I believe that most of them are out there with the intention of protecting innocent people. | ||
| Fb1 |
I believe that most of them are out there with the intention of protecting innocent people. +1 | ||
| Reepicheep |
This article was really interesting to me... it gave me a lot of good stuff to think about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles | ||
| Court |
That is interesting reading. Who could have ever dreamed we'd ask so much of our police forces? | ||
| Buellkowski |
Here's a link to the ACLU report: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/ju s14-warcomeshome-report-web-rel1.pdf When you are given too many hammers, everything starts to look like a nail. +1 | ||
| Buellkowski |
From Reep's link to the Peelian Principles article: "The Home Office has explained this approach as 'the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state.'" Do you think the general public of our country's various municipalities has the gumption to politically prevent our police forces from pursuing and accepting DHS grants and surplus military equipment? Or are they too scared of riots and terrorist attacks? The Byrne and COPS programs are DOJ programs to encourage community policing and revitalization. Naturally, they were cut under Bush and re-funded under Obama. But the HuffPost article makes it sound like those grant funds are being used to procure military equipment. Really? | ||
| Brumbear |
Oh so the 6 police cars hidden on the side of the roads I see every morning in the first 9 miles of driving I do. Well are doing helpful things silly me, I thought they just couldn't see tailgaters and dump truck drivers running like sport cars through traffic and only focused on anybody doing 5 miles an hour over the speed limit and talking on the phone cause the stealthy positions they lie in wait offer limited visibility. You know the more I think about it I probably wouldn't bother to call a cop for much anymore, they don't or can't do much about anything so why bother. My childhood image of a police officer being nice to a little fella on the cover of the Sat. evening post has been turned into my children's mental image that is probably of a meter maid with an attitude. I try to tell em a few bad apples and media shouldn't dictate how you think and then the Police go ahead and prove me wrong again. | ||
| Torquehd |
Alright... now the flip side of the coin. I've only trained with one SWAT team in NC, and they were in all senses a disgrace. They had no tactical knowledge, and watching them enter compounds and clear rooms was a joke. I work with a handful of guys who have had similar experiences, working with SWAT in other locations. Most SWAT "operators" are not operators at all. The majority know so little about tactics, that if you've spent any time in the military doing basic urban-style infantry operations, chances are, you know more, are in better shape, are a better shot, than the average SWAT officer. Please note, this won't be true in a lot of larger cities, where SWAT teams have to be good at what they do, because the crime in the area demands operators who know what the f--- they're doing. I'm not knocking SWAT, I think it's sad that so many units lack the training that every E-1 11B gets. | ||
| Etennuly |
The first problem I see happening is what I have seen here a couple of times. Those operators in the dispatch offices are cutting a thin line on what they relay to officers and how they say it. I had a relative crash a fourwheeler on my property.....riding in the dirt 1/4 of a mile from the nearest road. He got a serious cut on his leg that required over fifty stitches. Being a big open cut I figured this should be an ambulance ride injury if ever I saw one. I called 911. This was the beginning of stupid. The call went like; "I have an injured person on my property that is requiring an ambulance", they asked what were the extent of the injuries, I told them a large cut on his leg. So they asked for my address, I told them "#### West Highway ###". Now you would think that might get someone familiar with the area here with an ambulance. Not so. First several police cars show up looking for the fourwheeler that wrecked on the highway. Once they found us at the bottom of my drive 1/4 of a mile from the nearest pavement they accused us of moving the fourwheeler and the injured party off from the highway! One of the officers was all pumped up wanting to arrest someone, even though the dirt was disturbed and the tracks were easily seen where the wreck happened. I actually asked the officer for his badge number then asked him to leave my property, explaining that his superior officer was there and we would speak to him. Next came round two of stupid. The ambulance that I had called for twenty minutes earlier just hauled ass by my place at 70 mph as if we did not exsist. So head officer calls dispatch for another ambulance rather than waiting for them to turn around. Finally someone notified them they had gone past our place and as they come down the drive ambulance #2 is right in front of them. Now we have three police cars, two ambulances and the ambulance drivers start arguing over the situation. Then a Fire truck shows up! Then came highly advanced stupidity. We are now forty five minutes into the accident. The man with all of the brains, according to him, speaks to the injured party, who now is stiff and sore from laying on the hard rough ground. This Fire Chief determines that the patient now has a back injury, but we know it is only because he has laid their so long.....now FD protocal is to call for airflight! What the hell! So forty minutes later a med flight helicopter shows up. $15,000 and another thirty minutes later the patient gets to the hospital that is thirty five miles away. His mother drove there and was in the ER before the patient was! Now I could have put him in the back of my Suburban and drove him to the hospital that is six miles from my place a couple hours quicker and certainly twenty grand cheaper. Now I told you that story to tell you this, these are the IDIOTS that are now armed with that federal program's power toys! Do we stand a chance? | ||
| Rick_a |
It means little to me. Around here I see the police doing their job and at some point in the year I get my annual ticket or two. I have seen local departments get armored vehicles under the current administration, and have to laugh when I hear news of Ohbummer calling for a review of said "militarization." Talk about a bad joke from a major hypocrite over cops defending themselves against attacks from common thugs having nothing to do with said military vehicles or military tactics. It's not so much the equipment that's the topic but how it's used. If armored vehicles and SWAT teams are being used to bust low level drug dealers, it may be a poor use of assets, but I don't sell drugs so I don't care much about that. The vehicles and equipment don't scare me, nor do I put much weight on any alarmist column in the popular media. | ||
| Aesquire |
I want my police to be well equipped. Body armor, accurate rifles, riot gear, side arms, and tasters/beanbag etc. Good training too. I do not want police armed with machine guns to consider them appropriate for any reason critbut to fight terrorists and entrenched organized crime groups. I do not think it wise to wear masks and gear with no front visible identification while smashing their way into people's homes. We've had far too many examples of "honest mistakes" where police assault the wrong house. Sure, mistakes happen. When you throw families into chains and demolish their homes you are no longer operating under "Protect and Serve" you have moved into "Obey your masters or die" actions of an occupying army. Not acceptable in my country. An armored personnel carrier for a small town sheriff dept? Maybe. Sniper rifles? Sure. How about howitzers? Claymore mines? Should they really have tanks with cannon? Everyone knows that the reason drugs are a major problem is.... 1. Making something illegal creates a black market and huge profits. Prohibition made organized crime big. 2. The criminals actually pay the politicians bribes to keep their monopoly. Most famous case is the Columbian drug lord who bribed Clinton and stayed in the Lincoln bedroom. 3. The police are hamstrung going after the drug gangs by insane rules....see bribed politicians and libertine judges. 4. It is not in the best interests of the politicians or the anti drug agencies to solve the problem. They would lose the bribes and funding....their jobs..... if they actually did their job. Cynical but true. Why do you think cannabis is illegal? ( hint check the dates and count the number of "public servants" who would have lost jobs after repeal of Prohibition ) I'm sure you can think of more reasons. | ||
| Chauly |
"Why do you think cannabis is illegal? ( hint check the dates and count the number of "public servants" who would have lost jobs after repeal of Prohibition ) " The dates also correspond to the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the increase in the "Revenooers" (IRS agents) to bust illegal stills for not paying taxes, all leading to the formation of BATF as a separate agency from the FBI. Sucks, don't it? Ever read "Unintended Consequences"? |
