It doesn't bother me if officers have combat gear , boots and clothing its some of the TTP that I don't agree with . All to often it seems they decide aginst officer friendly's visit because we had a concerd call and decide to go for the hard knock of show of force . What should have been a public servant doing his job turns into lets go intimadate the citizens and let them know if they are doing wrong or not . As far as the gear they have I guess they should be able to carry anything I carry .
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Militarization of Police Departments
- Thread starter odugrad
- Start date
Anyone recognize these words?
Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.
I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?
No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us:
Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.
I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?
No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us:
zxcvbob Wrote:
Yup, it certainly is part of the problem, IMO.
And the judge didn't care that the officer was caught lying under oath. That's part of the problem too.
Yup, it certainly is part of the problem, IMO.
The institutionalization of a police state has no bounds.
As the post above says, the judges are often as or more corrupt than the officers committing the crimes.
Wanna see where it goes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2IFcjbSqFs
These are historical facts, not opinions. This is the kind of history lesson that makes people uncomfortable, but it's a lesson that MUST be learned.
The police serving the Nazis were convinced they were justified when they started. Many never changed their minds.
This is just one example. Keep in mind the fact that most of the crimes were committed by people against their own countrymen at first.
There are many many many more, from the days of Egypt until today. Those that believe it could not happen here are the very people that are allowing the institution to grow until it’s too big to stop.
As the post above says, the judges are often as or more corrupt than the officers committing the crimes.
Wanna see where it goes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2IFcjbSqFs
These are historical facts, not opinions. This is the kind of history lesson that makes people uncomfortable, but it's a lesson that MUST be learned.
The police serving the Nazis were convinced they were justified when they started. Many never changed their minds.
This is just one example. Keep in mind the fact that most of the crimes were committed by people against their own countrymen at first.
There are many many many more, from the days of Egypt until today. Those that believe it could not happen here are the very people that are allowing the institution to grow until it’s too big to stop.
There are the raids at wrong addresses where innocent people have been killed. These things should not be, period.
Do you have some plan for eliminating human error? Police raid the wrong house by mistake. Homeowner defends before s/he knows they're police. Somebody gets killed. It shouldn't happen, but I can't think of any way to prevent it every time for the rest of forever.
Stop it forever and always ? No. But a officer walking up to the door and anouncing themself and letting the homeowner know why they are there would help . If its a situation where that is not likely then survaliance gather intel and find away to deal with it . This being normal calls not where we have knowlage of someone being hurt in the residence .
JimDandy Wrote:
I can think of a way that would certainly reduce the incidence of it, if not eliminate it altogether. Remove the immunity that LE hides behind.
If I shoot someone by mistake ( you know, human error ) I will be charged, tried, and likely spend some time in prison.
Police officers do not have that same fear, if they did, there would likely be a paradigm shift in the use of the "no knock" type raids that usually propagate the deaths of innocents by "human error".
Do you have some plan for eliminating human error? Police raid the wrong house by mistake. Homeowner defends before s/he knows they're police. Somebody gets killed. It shouldn't happen, but I can't think of any way to prevent it every time for the rest of forever.
I can think of a way that would certainly reduce the incidence of it, if not eliminate it altogether. Remove the immunity that LE hides behind.
If I shoot someone by mistake ( you know, human error ) I will be charged, tried, and likely spend some time in prison.
Police officers do not have that same fear, if they did, there would likely be a paradigm shift in the use of the "no knock" type raids that usually propagate the deaths of innocents by "human error".
I can think of a way that would certainly reduce the incidence of it, if not eliminate it altogether. Remove the immunity that LE hides behind.
OK. Who do you prosecute? The clerk who transposed the house number? The officer who misread the street sign? The first officer (who did none of the above) through the door who gets shot at and defends himself from the misunderstanding resident? Is the Lieutenant who wasn't even there open to RICO charges?
JimDandy Wrote:
Start with the shooter(s) and move from there, Just like any other case, if there are "accomplices" They should be tried for their roles as well.
If you remove the "protected class" status, everyone that has a hand in such activities will be darned sure they are correct before proceeding.
A little "skin in the game" could make a world of difference.
But, this is off-topic and, has had many a thread on it's own.
OK. Who do you prosecute?
Start with the shooter(s) and move from there, Just like any other case, if there are "accomplices" They should be tried for their roles as well.
If you remove the "protected class" status, everyone that has a hand in such activities will be darned sure they are correct before proceeding.
A little "skin in the game" could make a world of difference.
But, this is off-topic and, has had many a thread on it's own.
Of course this is all reactive. I would hope a full root cause analysis would be done with appropriate system/process corrective actions.
I would also like to see/understand what the risk analysis was prior to conducting these operations. Surely they've done a thorough risk analysis when setting up the SWAT team?! Did they use FMEA (Failure Modes & Effects Analysis), Fault Tree Analysis, or some other methodology? It would be negligent not to.
In fact it would be sensible to do a risk assessment for each (planned) no-knock warrant entry or similar operation or at least review the established risk model/template for a similar operation.
I would also like to see/understand what the risk analysis was prior to conducting these operations. Surely they've done a thorough risk analysis when setting up the SWAT team?! Did they use FMEA (Failure Modes & Effects Analysis), Fault Tree Analysis, or some other methodology? It would be negligent not to.
In fact it would be sensible to do a risk assessment for each (planned) no-knock warrant entry or similar operation or at least review the established risk model/template for a similar operation.
So you want to prosecute the guy in the back of the van whose only "crime" is being the first through the door when a misunderstanding resident shoots at him.Start with the shooter(s) and move from there
Wyosmith,
Yes, I recognize Patrick Henry's speech. We had to memorize it in school and the snippet you posted resonated after more than half a century in my brain, so I looked it up and re-read the whole thing.
There is no question that your analysis is correct, but what course of action do you propose? Henry proposed war - his entire speech was a call to arms, immediate as opposed to "when it gets bad enough" - and I do not think most Americans see the issue as having degenerated to the point that outright immediate rebellion is appropriate.
Pointing out the change in mindset from "Peace Officer" to "Us versus them" is the most effective course of action I see. I do not think that hardware is the issue, I think the adversarial relation between "civilian citizens" and "civil police" is the problem. And I do not see that problem being solved by hysteria in the media or by cop bashing, or taking up sides - except being on the side of reason and (as you point out), historical understanding.
Sorry to ramble so - I resented being forced to memorize all those things then, and now I'm grateful for it.
Yes, I recognize Patrick Henry's speech. We had to memorize it in school and the snippet you posted resonated after more than half a century in my brain, so I looked it up and re-read the whole thing.
There is no question that your analysis is correct, but what course of action do you propose? Henry proposed war - his entire speech was a call to arms, immediate as opposed to "when it gets bad enough" - and I do not think most Americans see the issue as having degenerated to the point that outright immediate rebellion is appropriate.
Pointing out the change in mindset from "Peace Officer" to "Us versus them" is the most effective course of action I see. I do not think that hardware is the issue, I think the adversarial relation between "civilian citizens" and "civil police" is the problem. And I do not see that problem being solved by hysteria in the media or by cop bashing, or taking up sides - except being on the side of reason and (as you point out), historical understanding.
Sorry to ramble so - I resented being forced to memorize all those things then, and now I'm grateful for it.
zincwarrior
New member
Now ? The cavalry (and their dogs) show up, everyone is searched, their cars searched, and, most likely, everyone goes to jail for various "charges".
The result ? Teens no longer trust the Police. Flag one down now and, even that might just result in your being searched and, "charged". This has built a generation that has had a great deal of adversarial encounters with police. The net result? no more mutual trust or respect.
When I lived in the less savory parts east of L.A. that was exactly the situation. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. The more you act like us vs. them (on both sides I'll add) the more it reinforces that.
Keep in mind that Police enforce the laws they don’t actually make the laws. Yes, I remember when Police often gave you a lecture and sent you on your way. However, in the litigious society that we now live police are fearful of not doing everything by the book. So, they enforce all the laws to the letter and people get angry. There is no doubt this adds to the adversarial relationship, but are the police the problem. Doesn’t the problem actually lay with our political leaders that feel an ever growing desire to regulate all aspects of our lives? Of course, I suppose, the ultimate responsibility falls on us the citizens that allows it.
zincwarrior
New member
Quote:
There are the raids at wrong addresses where innocent people have been killed. These things should not be, period.
Do you have some plan for eliminating human error? Police raid the wrong house by mistake. Homeowner defends before s/he knows they're police. Somebody gets killed. It shouldn't happen, but I can't think of any way to prevent it every time for the rest of forever.
Sure its not difficult. Quit "no knock " SWAT raids. They weren't started as a safety measure but to get in before the BG could flush drugs.
Its not worth it.
Do you have some plan for eliminating human error? Police raid the wrong house by mistake. Homeowner defends before s/he knows they're police. Somebody gets killed. It shouldn't happen, but I can't think of any way to prevent it every time for the rest of forever
Stop acting like Rambo in the middle of the night, maybe then they can get the address right
JimDandy Wrote:
If he is at the wrong address, and an innocent person is shot, he Should be considered complicit in a "crime" indeed. ADW, manslaughter, or possibly homicide. Same as I would if I went to the wrong house and shot someone as a result.
"just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse, that was proven a long time ago.
They are mere civilians, same as us, hired to do a job, same as us. They should be equally as accountable for their screw-ups, same as us.
So you want to prosecute the guy in the back of the van whose only "crime" is being the first through the door when a misunderstanding resident shoots at him.
If he is at the wrong address, and an innocent person is shot, he Should be considered complicit in a "crime" indeed. ADW, manslaughter, or possibly homicide. Same as I would if I went to the wrong house and shot someone as a result.
"just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse, that was proven a long time ago.
They are mere civilians, same as us, hired to do a job, same as us. They should be equally as accountable for their screw-ups, same as us.
Madcap_Magician
New member
OuTcAsT said:It may be a bit off-topic but, I think it is germane to the discussion:
The huge change in "attitude" over the years has had a dramatic effect on the way LE is perceived by the very public they used to exist to protect.
You are perceiving wrongly. There has been no change in "attitude." There have been police officers who abuse their powers and have bad attitudes, departments that by culture and policy are too aggressive and violent, and administrators and elected officials who cover for bad cops since the dawn of policing. There is no evidence to suggest that this problem has grown over time, and a reasonable argument can be made that it has actually diminished over time.
OuTcAsT said:Fast forward to the court date, I attend to observe, Officer testifies that My Son was "weaving all over and, even struck the curb" Son asks to see the dashcam evidence. The tape is played and, clearly shows the vehicle traveling within the lane, no sign of "weaving" or contact with the curb. Case is dismissed as the Judge could find no evidence of the allegation.
zxcvbob said:And the judge didn't care that the officer was caught lying under oath. That's part of the problem too.
There is no evidence the officer was lying. Dash cams generally automatically activate when the lights and sirens are activated. For a traffic violation, that would not happen until after the violation was observed for the obvious reason that there's no need to drive code or manually activate the dash cam until after an officer sees a violation
All the dash cam video means is that after the officer decided to stop OuTcAsT's son, there were no observed traffic violations. I would venture a guess that most people are quite careful about their driving when an officer is driving code behind them.
This does not mean there is any additional evidence (beyond the officer's testimony) that OuTcAsT's son was violating traffic law, just that the assumption that the officer was lying is based on ignorance and probably bias as well.
OuTcAsT said:My point is this: It seems that nowadays, officers tend to simply "throw charges" at anything just to see if they can make something stick. They don't seem as interested in deterring crime so much as "make arrests" Like they have some sort of "quota" to fill. Incidents like this do nothing to help prevent crime or, protect the public safety, they are "fishing" for anything that will "stick" It's like a game to see how many charges they can file in a shift. It creates a huge void in Trust.
What evidence do you have that this phenomenon is new? One interesting thing about the "quota" rumor is that establishing traffic ticket quotas is actually illegal in my state and many others. Officers don't get to throw charges at anything, that's up to the city or county prosecuting attorney. Generally when non-traffic police conduct a traffic stop, they are indeed "fishing"- fishing for warrants, drugs, and illegal weapons. Which is why frequently if you don't have any of those and are not a jerk, you will get warnings instead of tickets.
As to any focus on making arrests as opposed to deterring crime, you've got it exactly backwards. The emphasis community policing model is relatively new to law enforcement, and 35 years ago, the actual stated emphasis would have been on making arrests. Nowadays virtually all local police departments emphasize community policing.
zincwarrior said:Sure its not difficult. Quit "no knock " SWAT raids. They weren't started as a safety measure but to get in before the BG could flush drugs.
Its not worth it.
Not so much. Likelihood of destruction of evidence is just one exigent circumstance that could justify a no-knock warrant. Second, a no-knock warrant with a SWAT team still involves announcing who you are as you go in the door. While it has happened (In my home state, actually), where a wrong address combined with innocent but non-English speaking inhabitants responded to a SWAT warrant service with gunfire, in most cases it's hard to argue that a SWAT team coming in your door yelling "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" didn't tell you they were the police.
OuTcAsT said:I can think of a way that would certainly reduce the incidence of it, if not eliminate it altogether. Remove the immunity that LE hides behind.
If I shoot someone by mistake ( you know, human error ) I will be charged, tried, and likely spend some time in prison.
Police officers do not have that same fear, if they did, there would likely be a paradigm shift in the use of the "no knock" type raids that usually propagate the deaths of innocents by "human error".
That's because you're caught up in the fallacy that you are the same as the police, and the police are the same as you. That's not the case.
If you were simply arguing that the police are also civilians and that they are no better than you, you would be on safe ground.
Police officers have some forms of legal protection that you do not because they are agents of the state with legal obligations to do things that you are actually legally obligated not to do.
Courts and legislatures have recognized that because police officers must make potentially fatal split-second decisions based on imperfect information, that as long as the officer's behavior was objectively reasonable based on the information the officer knew, the officer will have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is not total immunity, and officers can still be personally liable if they acted unreasonably. Individual officers do not have some kind of absolute immunity to lawsuits or criminal penalties.
Additionally, if you shoot someone by mistake, there is actually no guarantee that you will be charged, and if an officer shoots someone by mistake, there is no guarantee that he or she will not be charged- it has happened both ways depending on the circumstances.
If you are interested in a world where the police are personally liable for civil suits incurred during the course of their reasonably performed legal duties, you are interested in a world where the police don't actually do anything, and in that case, I'm guessing you would be here with a very different complaint.
Last edited:
zincwarrior
New member
Name a non-hostage situation where there are exigent circumstances.Not so much. Likelihood of destruction of evidence is just one exigent circumstance that could justify a no-knock warrant.
Note the key part of your sentence: as they go in the door. Thats at the same time flash bangs are going off, shouting etc. etc.Second, a no-knock warrant with a SWAT team still involves announcing who you are as you go in the door.
Why go in at all? Make them come out.
While it has happened (In my home state, actually), where a wrong address combined with innocent but non-English speaking inhabitants responded to a SWAT warrant service with gunfire, in most cases it's hard to argue that a SWAT team coming in your door yelling "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT" didn't tell you they were the police.
Especially not after you're already dead because you picked up your EDC because someone just kicked in your door and is shouting at you with blinding lights.
And why do you need such except for felony murder/kidnapping/rape in progress type situations?
Madcap_Magician Wrote:
And, you would be totally wrong. The dashcams on the police cruisers in this city run a continuous loop from beginning of shift, until end. I saw the video, from several minutes before the officer even saw my truck, followed it for about 2.5 miles, ( at night) before he "lit him up" .
The judge also saw the verbal interaction after the stop, he commented that the officer had no justifiable reason for the stop.let alone the search request. It was an obvious lie under oath.
Thanks for making my point !
Indeed, see my comment about serving on a Grand Jury.
You ask for "evidence" I believe any thinking adult, that is in my age group, (50+) can tell you from personal experience and simple observation that the mindset has changed drastically and, not for the better. Obfuscate all you like, whom do I believe ? You, or my lying eyes ?
There is no evidence the officer was lying. Dash cams generally automatically activate when the lights and sirens are activated. For a traffic violation, that would not happen until after the violation was observed for the obvious reason that there's no need to drive code or manually activate the dash cam until after an officer sees a violation
All the dash cam video means is that after the officer decided to stop OuTcAsT's son, there were no observed traffic violations. I would venture a guess that most people are quite careful about their driving when an officer is driving code behind them.
And, you would be totally wrong. The dashcams on the police cruisers in this city run a continuous loop from beginning of shift, until end. I saw the video, from several minutes before the officer even saw my truck, followed it for about 2.5 miles, ( at night) before he "lit him up" .
The judge also saw the verbal interaction after the stop, he commented that the officer had no justifiable reason for the stop.let alone the search request. It was an obvious lie under oath.
That's because you're caught up in the fallacy that you are the same as the police, and the police are the same as you. That's not the case.
There have been police officers who abuse their powers and have bad attitudes, departments that by culture and policy are too aggressive and violent, and administrators and elected officials who cover for bad cops since the dawn of policing.
Thanks for making my point !
Officers don't get to throw charges at anything, that's up to the city or county prosecuting attorney. Generally when non-traffic police conduct a traffic stop, they are indeed "fishing"- fishing for warrants, drugs, and illegal weapons.
Indeed, see my comment about serving on a Grand Jury.
You ask for "evidence" I believe any thinking adult, that is in my age group, (50+) can tell you from personal experience and simple observation that the mindset has changed drastically and, not for the better. Obfuscate all you like, whom do I believe ? You, or my lying eyes ?