Militarization of Police--Necessary?

P

Powderman

New member
There have been many threads posted concerning the militarization of law enforcement officers, and the increasing amounts of military style tactics and equipment adapted and used by local law enforcement.

As an example, this is the load out I carry while on duty:

Service weapon: Colt Enhanced, with 41 rounds of Ranger 230 gr. SXT
Backup: Glock 27 with 10 rounds 180 gr. Ranger SXT
Shotgun: Wnchester 1300 Defender, seven rounds cruiser ready, loaded slug/slug/buck, then alternating, with 4 more slugs and 2 00 buck on a sidesaddle
Patrol Rifle: AR15A4, 20", with 7 mags of 55 gr. Federal Tactical (28 rounds each mag)
Precision Rifle: Savage 10FP-LE2A, cruiser ready, 4 rounds 168 gr. GM Match in the rifle, 40 more in the drag bag.

Some folks would say that this is too much--that a peace officer should not carry such offensive weaponry. And the truth be told, so far the only things these guns have fired upon is paper and reactive targets. (And, a damned fine job they did!)

So, an argument can be made that I don't really NEED all this firepower.

But...what if?

The following is copied from a thread, found at: http://www.theblackhole.us/forum/showthread.php?t=2591

Here is why we carry the firepower we do.

------------------------------

The Fairfax County Police Department has released dramatic new details of the May shootout in which two of its officers were killed by a troubled teenager.

The 18-page narrative was released Tuesday to coincide with the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce's announcement that the slain officers would be posthumously honored with valor awards from the chamber.

Detective Vicky O. Armel, 40, and Officer Michael E. Garbarino, 53, were shot and killed by 18-year-old Michael W. Kennedy, who drove a stolen van up to the Sully District Police Station and opened fire. Kennedy was shot dead by other officers.

According to the account released Tuesday, Armel tried to draw fire from Garbarino even though she could have ducked behind her car or run back inside. And Garbarino stayed on his police radio after he had been hit five times, instructing people how to respond.

"My men and women on May 8 just responded with incredible courage," Police Chief David M. Rohrer said.

Police said Kennedy wore camouflage-style clothes, kneepads, a ski mask and a vest loaded with ammunition. He carried an AK-47-type rifle, a .30-06 rifle, four .22-caliber handguns and one .38-caliber handgun.
When Kennedy drove the van into the back parking lot of the station just before 4 p.m., Garbarino's shift had just ended. Police believe he was sitting in his unmarked cruiser to log off his computer before getting into his personal car to begin his vacation.

Armel was on her way to investigate Kennedy's vehicle theft. She had on her bulletproof vest and was outside her car when Kennedy began firing into Garbarino's car.

Garbarino radioed instructions for a rescue helicopter to land in the station's front lot. Rohrer said he was probably in and out of consciousness.

Armel fired seven shots, and Kennedy then directed his attack toward her, police said.

"She could have left," Rohrer said. "She engaged Mr. Kennedy with a desire to save lives."

A round from Kennedy's .30-06 pierced Armel's vest, but she made it inside her car. She fired four more times at Kennedy, even as he hit her twice more in the legs.

Officer Richard A. Lehr was sitting in another corner of the parking lot before his shift. He had no police radio and didn't know anyone had been wounded. He put on his bulletproof vest, picked up his revolver and started shooting at Kennedy.

Lehr believed he had struck Kennedy in the upper body, knocking him down, police said. But Lehr soon ran out of ammunition. He darted into the station, dodging Kennedy's gunfire, reloaded and went back outside.

Officers Mark Dale and Jeffrey Andrea of the Mount Vernon station heard Garbarino on the radio and went to help. The two entered the woods next to the parking lot and fired at Kennedy through a chain-link fence. They are credited with killing him.

Kennedy had recently fled from a mental health facility in Maryland, and was free on bond in connection with a carjacking.

The chamber of commerce is awarding Armel, Garbarino and Lehr gold medals for valor. Only two others have received the gold medal since the chamber began the honors for fire, police and sheriff's personnel in 1978.

________________________________________

And that's why I carry a bunch of firepower. Incidentally, all my weapons but the precision rifle are mounted so that they are accessible to me immediately. I can deploy the AR, have it out of the car and firing aimed shots within 7 seconds.

If only there had been an officer there with a semiautomatic rifle with a high rate of fire! Perhaps one of the officers might have been saved.

I have made part of my mindset--neither I, nor my fellow officers, nor any good member of the public that I am sworn to protect will go quietly into that good night. At least, not if I have anything to say about it.

Discussion?
__________________
 
Just try to emphathize with us "Civilians" who might just find ourselves in a life or death situation and are not allowed to be armed in many parts of this country.

If I drove into NY state with the "Arsenal" you carry I would be thrown in the greybar, and NY would probably parole a three time looser baby molester to make room for me.
 
Just try to emphathize with us "Civilians" who might just find ourselves in a life or death situation and are not allowed to be armed in many parts of this country.

If I drove into NY state with the "Arsenal" you carry I would be thrown in the greybar, and NY would probably parole a three time looser baby molester to make room for me.
Click to expand...

I know I'll get flamed, but I have no empathy or sympathy for anyone who chooses to live or visit in a place that is that restrictive. The people have elected and elected and repeatedly elected those who are making the laws restricting their rights. Stop electing pro-criminal politicos. If you don't like the laws where you live, get them changed, move or ignore them and pay the consequences for your actions if you get caught. I personally have no desire to be a crying towel for people who elected pro-criminal legislators.
 
I view militarization as more of a mindset...........

I don't have a thing in the world against peace officers having the tools needed to do the job demanded of them. What I am not comfortable with is the paramilitary midset when it comes to law enforcement. What's the difference between an armed peace officer and an armed soldier? The soldier is not acquainted with constitutional issues or the laws themselves. Consider the example of New Orleans. Men with guns were going from door to door, pointing their guns at home owners and taking lawfully owned guns. The soldiers had the excuse of ignorance.......I'm not sure what excuse the N.O.P.D. used, but real cops would have known better. I believe the use of no-knock warrants to be another example of a military solution to a police problem. Any performance of this technique creates a situation in which people may be killed. In some cases the warrant has been served to the wrong people at the wrong residence and in any event many homeowners have loaded firearms within reach and are likely to respond as any honest homeowner is likely to respond to armed men storming their home. If a no knock warrant has a use then it is only to prevent the imminent loss of life.
 
Real Job

I was always under the impression that the main job of police departments were to arrest and detain people. It was up to the court system to determine guilt and mete out punishment. Why paramilitary gear is required for that is beyond me.

I know there are situations where peace officers need to have heavy fire power. That is where SWAT teams come in. I feel uncomfortable having regular "beat" officers armed to the teeth.
 
Jimbob, regarding the military mindset, see my first post.

How would a peace officer respond to the threat as outlined above?

In the past, by attempting to contain the subject, isolating the public from the threat, and hopefully negotiating a peaceful surrender.

How would soldiers respond to the threat?

By closing with, and destroying the combatant with fire, maneuver and shock effect.

This also encompasses a comment to your post, Roy:

There are some times when you can't afford to wait for SWAT/SRT/ERT. It's happening right there, right NOW. When people are dying, you don't have time to back off; you grab what you can, say a quick prayer and go in.

It's why we have training in active shooter scenarios right now. This training is similar to what is known as MOUT--Military Operations in Urban Terrain, and also basic combat response.

But, you mentioned that you believe that regular beat officers should not be "armed to the teeth".

Put yourself in a couple of past incidents:

You are a parent. You have a student in Columbine High School when two madmen open fire in the school. There is only one patrol car available to initially respond. Sure, the call went out, and every officer in a fifty mile radius is blowing their engine to get there on time.

But your child is inside, RIGHT NOW. Kids are being murdered, RIGHT NOW.

Still think that the responding officer can wait for SWAT?

How about North Hollywood? There are two heavily armed men, wearing body armor, that just came out of that bank. They are spraying 7.62 rounds full auto. They are NOT being affected by the impact of handgun rounds from the responding officers.

Would that incident have gone on as long as it had if an officer had been there, on the scene, with an available .308 bolt rifle with good optics, and perhaps a basic ammo load of .308 Match ammunition and maybe--just maybe--some 7.62 AP?

Still think that cops should not have that firepower available?
 
Not Sure

Trust me when I say that I admire peace officers. They do a job that they couldn't pay me enough to do. But having all officers heavily armed makes me nervous.

Didn't a German leader of the last century have heavily armed thugs roaming the streets? Our police departments are a branch of government. I guess I just don't trust all our leaders.
 
Didn't a German leader of the last century have heavily armed thugs roaming the streets? Our police departments are a branch of government. I guess I just don't trust all our leaders.
Click to expand...


A big difference is they had centralized govt with centralized control. We have a centralized govt with decentralized control. Meaning he controlled everything within the govt from his office and our president doesn't control Mayberry PD from his office.
 
I'm all for police being somewhat militarized. The load out the thread starter doesn't sound outrageous to me. I want to back that up with one of the motto's many of our CCW members use: "Better to have it and not need it..."

There are many situations where I believe our LEO's need this equipment. There are bad people in our society who are out to do bad things. When an officer rolls up on one of these people, do you really think the BG will wait when the officer says, "Time out!! I need to call a S.W.A.T. team!" While the said officer waits for more "properly equipped" officers to show up, who knows how many innocents will die at the hands of the BG with a high power rifle.

Come on guys, it's not like our patrol officers are running around with full auto MP5's and .50BMG sniper rifles. They are doing one of the most dangerous jobs that one can do on U.S. soil. If you've been pulled over for a traffic violation and had an AR-15 in your face while asked for your license and registration, then maybe I could imagine your distress. However, with the correct training and use, these tools in the hands of our Boys in Blue will continue to keep our streets safe.
 
Decentralized control?

Originally this country was formed as a Confederation of independent states with a central government posessing only those powers allowed it by the several states. Today that central government is strong and growing stronger. It may still be decentralized but the move is decidedly towards federalization of nearly everything.

Please do not misunderstand me. I have the utmost respect for our men and women in blue and I want them to have the best tools available. I fear however that the increasing militarization of our police forces and continued attempts to disarm the general public may indeed lead to a less than satisfactory situation in this country.
 
A police officer is at half the risk of death and injury on the job than is a farmer, truck driver or logger and considerably less than a heavy-construction worker, roofer or coal miner (the most dangerous job).
 
This is a most interesting question.

First, I do not specifically have a problem with the gear Powderman listed in the initial post. However, I am uncomfortable with the premise underlying the gear - namely, to be prepared for anything that might occur. Why not add a SMG, .50BMG, grenades, and maybe a small missile or two to the load out? Where does it stop when you are preparing for such rare or unique events as Fairfax, Columbine, North Hollywood, or the guy who stole the M60 main battle tank in San Diego in 1995?

Second, I do not have a problem with Powderman's description of having the gear available if needed in a dire situation. However, I am opposed to the increasingly frequent use of such gear on an apparently casual basis. In some jurisdictions, SWAT has become the de facto, if not official, warrant squad. If the gear is being used because it's cool, because it's there, or "just in case," there is a problem.

To sum up my views, the police should have the tools they reasonably need to do their jobs and should use those tools judiciously.
 
A police officer is at half the risk of death and injury on the job than is a farmer, truck driver or logger and considerably less than a heavy-construction worker, roofer or coal miner (the most dangerous job).
Click to expand...

None of them are asked to pursue armed felons. Before you say a police officer could change jobs if he didn't like the danger, the same could be said for farmers, loggers etc.
 
No Military

The military can not legally patrol the streets. Doesn't militarization of police go counter to this. Our Founding fathers did not want soldiers standing on corners and patrolling our streets. The British had left a bad taste in their mouth.

I am uncomfortable with a militarized police force. Maybe this is unfounded fear. Maybe I am being paranoid. But I think 99.9% of all police actions do not require SWAT team type weapons and tactics.
 
Roy, as far as militarization is concerned, there are still (IMHO) as few misconceptions that need to be cleared up.

In the case of law enforcement, militarization is NOT the case of a police department becoming and assuming a military role. Rather, it is the adaptation of military tactics, used sparingly and in direct response to an increasing threat level.

In the case of the regular patrol officer, that firepower is not needed for everyday tasks and the performance of the job.

However, history has shown us, time and again, that sometimes the unthinkable happens. And when that unthinkable does happen, the soldier, police officer, firefighter/EMT, paramedic and others do what is normal for us: We ride to the sound of the guns--literally.

The long guns also have a distinct deterrent effect: A criminal who is using a firearm or presenting a deadly threat might well think twice if he/she is confronted by a .72 caliber muzzle, or perhaps seeing an AR/M16 in the hands of the good guys. Moreover, I am willing to bet (I have no proof, however) that armed confrontations have been resolved when the shooter saw a scoped rifle pointing at them.

Another poster asked what else we should carry, and mentioned small missiles. :o No, not quite. The incident where a guy stole an M60 MBT was very isolated. If we were to prepare for EVERY eventuality we might enounter, we might patrol in Stryker vehicles, with a TOW launcher, some mounted machine guns, a trailer containing a mobile operating room staffed with at least 2 EMT's and a surgeon and a fire engine. :D
 
Intended with respect to the forum...

But I think 99.9% of all police actions do not require SWAT team type weapons and tactics.
Click to expand...

In situations where I've noted SWAT force used, they were all circumstances where a BG was known to be or expected to be armed. As a person who is aspiring to become a police officer himself, I would definatly prefer to have the full assortment of SWAT gear to go into Mr. DrugLord's house. These men and women are putting their lives on the line so your family can sleep better at night. I can't think of a reason that our officers should be less equipped than the bad guys they're dealing with.

I think a lot of police actions do not require a SWAT team, but for those situations where a SWAT team is deployed, imagine a standard patrol officer trying to perform the roll himself, with only a trusty service issue handgun on his hip.

Believe it or not, our streets are safer with police out there the way they are. Imagine a world where police end up having to run away from BG because they're underarmed... Now it's up to you and yourself only to stop the criminals when you are being victimized. If they've got guns big enough to chase away the police, I think you're kinda screwed....
 
None of them are asked to pursue armed felons. Before you say a police officer could change jobs if he didn't like the danger, the same could be said for farmers, loggers etc.
Click to expand...

Yea, but very often the police officer knows when he is in danger and is not in constant danger like people in other occupations. What would you rather face:

An armed felon high on cocaine or a 4 ton log that just broke loose from its cable and you are in the way.

A drunk driver doing 90 MPH or angry bull that decides to charge you and you are nowhere near the fence.

Serve a warrant on a meth lab or be dismembered in a piece of farm equipement, with nobody finding you for hours or days.

Get sucker punched by a previously cooperative suspect or be dragged overboard into the cold Atlantic when your foot gets caught in a rope.

Compared to the most dangerous jobs, being a police officer is a VERY safe job.(Felon chasing or not.) You generaly are in a metal cage on wheels most of your patrol. You are not working 30 feet above the ground, you are not in a 100 foot boat on heavy seas working nets and ropes that could catch on you and pull you into the sea due to a small mistake, you are not in a coal mine that might fall on your head at any moment.

Would you rather take a 40 foot fall onto concrete or a bullet/knife in the chest. I'll take the bullet any day. At least you have kevlar as a cop.

As a police officer, you have the luxury of having backup. A family friend lost his arm in a farming accident years ago. He was lucky to be alive as it could have been much longer before someone found him. As a police officer you check in regularly with a central dispatch who can send you help at the push of a button.

Looking at the numbers, more police died in 2005 by traffic accidents (81) than by violence (50). Death by traffic accident is a risk that alot of people who have driving jobs take and is not unique to being a police officer.

One of the drivers for my uncle had the front tire on the truck blow out during the beet harvest. That driver got a large bonus for actualy keeping the truck on the road with that shredded tire and the truck was empty at the time. Had the truck been loaded with 20,000 to 30,000 lbs of beets, the driver would have gone into the ditch, no question about it. You can't loose a front tire on a loaded (and often slightly overloaded) truck like that and maintain control, the driver would have almost certianly been killed had the truck been loaded. A police officer dpes not have to worry about being crushed to death by their cargo.

Certianly, there are dangerous moments being a police officer, but it is far from being the most dangerous job in the world. It doesn't even come close to being in the top 10. It goes even farther down the list if you don't count the traffic fatalities since that is not a risk that is inherent to that job.

America's most dangerous jobs
 
I'll echo and expand on what GC70 said.

I see two issues here.

1. The ordinance listed in Powerman's original post could be considered reasonable in some jurisdictions. But not every officer or unit should have this equipment. The reason for this thinking is that there are large numbers of officers on PDs who cannot shoot for beans. Handing them another weapon that they will fail to shoot accurately will not solve the problem. The solution may be to seek out the enthusiasts in the department and provide them with the tools and training instead of letting most of the patrol officers have them.

2. The paramilitary concerns, at least here and I think for many people, isn't the average traffic or beat officer. It is the over-use of dynamic entry raids and the often times heavy-handed tactics that are the result of the raid. One raid near here had police embarrassed because protocol required handcuffing occupants during the raid, which officers extended it to both a bedridden 90-something emphysema patient (handcuffed behind his back no less) as well as a four year old girl and her six year old sister. Since the crime was two street sales of cocaine (2g ea) in three months questions are being asked about the necessity of the raid versus an arrest followed up with a search warrant. Given the amount of planning for such a raid along with the typical PR statements of it being the result of an "intensive investigation" it seems to me that some time and effort would be spent to develop an alternative technique and leave dynamic entries for high risk situations.

When John Q. Public hears about a raid at the wrong location, his first thought is of it happening to him and his family. Even if the percentage of incidents is relatively small, remember that our constitution requires -- requires -- a warrant be issued for a specific location and that the warrant is presented to a judge under oath for a reason. Those reaons are to safeguard the liberty of the people and to provide punishment to government officials who falsely accuse or terrorize the citizenry. Police raiding the wrong address (regardless of a paperwork error or misidentification of the target) are performing an illegal entry, search and detention of those inside (and evidence gained by these actions is as void as if they randomly broke into homes to rifle the drawers). Likewise, officers who "stretch the truth" or omit unfavorable information when applying for a warrant should be accountable for perjury and exposed to liability for damages or injuries resulting from his acts or omissions.

Please understand that I'm not bashing the cops, but the system. I think most officers would welcome reforms that help ensure that dynamic entries are used only in "high risk" situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top