Militarization of Police--Necessary?

[nobody_special]

I'm firmly against the militarization of police. That being said, I don't have any major complaint against the weapons you carry in your vehicle, providing the rifle is semi-automatic.

I do have a problem with the military training of police, and police with grenades, automatic weapons, tanks or APCs, etc. which has happened in the last couple decades due to the "war on drugs." (Haven't we won that one yet? Can't we declare victory and go home?) I think all that stuff causes far more problems than it solves. It's effectively an end-run around Posse Comitatus (which has essentially been repealed anyway).

If the police treat people like criminals, they're more likely to behave as criminals - and good people, who are ordinarily law-abiding and upstanding citizens, may simply lose respect for the police or the law. Serving routine warrants with SWAT teams, or sending troops in riot gear to confront peaceful protesters, is asking for (or causing!) trouble. And that sort of thing happens routinely in this country. On the other hand, a neighborly police officer who knows the people in his community and is seen as being helpful will do a lot more good.

With that in mind, how well armed should you be as a "neighborly" community police officer? Being armed to the teeth might make you feel better on the job, but ask yourself this: what effect does this have on your attitude? Does it make you focus more on the possibility of violent confrontation, and does that affect how you treat people? How will it make the people in the community feel? (It would make me nervous... but then, I've always been terrified of authority or getting in any sort of trouble, even though I'm a clean-living, law-abiding guy.)

You can't prepare for all eventualities, and it's often not a good idea to even try to do so. Sure, things like Columbine happen... but such events are extremely rare, and the disproportionate media coverage tends to cause an emotional reaction that exaggerates the significance of such events far out of proportion. As an officer of the peace, you should acknowledge that it is possible that you will be out-gunned by a criminal someday, and accept that there is nothing you can do about it. It's inevitable, unless you want to drive an APC... and even then, a bad guy might get a tank. Some things you can't control.

If it were me, I'd consider having a long gun in the trunk, where it's less visible.

The underlying problems which produce so much violence and crime in our society are probably more due to politics than police, though; the "war on drugs" especially, but also a society where people are reactionary to every bad event... "think of the children" springs to mind as a rallying cry that has inspired all sorts of ridiculous laws. Everyone wants protection, nobody wants responsibility. We have a "war on terrorism" now, which has done almost as much to restrict civil liberties as the previous war on drugs; by my count, only 2 out of 10 articles of the Bill of Rights are still enforced in this country (see my rant). When the government doesn't respect the law, the people won't either; and by making so many things illegal, criminals are made out of decent people. And overly-aggressive, militarized police do not help the situation.

 

[Waitone]

I've been concerned about the militarization of LE for quite some time. Attitude in far too many cases follows equipment. History is LE arms tend to follow the BG's, not the other way around. I'd just as soon as LE lead the arms of the BG's in their geographical locale. A full auto shootout in Northridge CA should not be justification for MP5's all around in Soddy Daisey, AL.

If the equipment is needed, then LE should get it and then some. Where I got a major rash is over Federal LE like USDA chicken producers inspectors packin' heat because it is cool. Now we're into fashion and style and I oppose it.

 

[Powderman]

With no flame intended, and firmly in the respectful discussion mode, here are my views on some of the replies in the last post.

providing the rifle is semi-automatic.

Why? I find that a lot of people on these boards think like this--they want unrestricted access to full auto, etc., but the patrol officer should NOT have the same. Why?

I do have a problem with the military training of police

Again, why? Anyone who has been through basic training or boot camp knows that the best response to an individual shooting at you is to assault through the ambush. To successfully execute the counter assault, one part of the fire team (let's say Officer A) must immediately respond with suppressive fire. Officer B then maneuvers closer, finds cover and lays down suppressive fire. Officer A then maneuvers closer and engages. This continues until the BG surrenders or is rendered unable to continue the attack. The best firearms for achieving fire superiority are full automatic.

Being armed to the teeth might make you feel better on the job, but ask yourself this: what effect does this have on your attitude?

It sure made me feel better when I responded to a call concerning a man pointing an SKS rifle through his window at people who were passing by.

Does it make you focus more on the possibility of violent confrontation, and does that affect how you treat people?

Basic patrol procedure: You treat EVERY contact with the possibility that the person or people in front of you will attempt to kill you--until they prove otherwise. You NEVER let your guard down; the day that you treat every contact otherwise is called complacency. That WILL get you hurt or killed if you do it long enough.

Sure, things like Columbine happen... but such events are extremely rare, and the disproportionate media coverage tends to cause an emotional reaction that exaggerates the significance of such events far out of proportion.

Agreed! But, when they DO happen, the responding officer does not have the time to wait for someone else to arrive. They must address the issue HERE and NOW. And, I'm willing to bet that the kids in Columbine, the ones huddled in that library listening to the gunshots that killed their classmates did not think that the significance of the event was exaggerated.

Another incident that happened here was the Tacoma Mall shootings, where another madman went nuts with a CZ52 and an AK. This happened right outside my jurisdiction--as a matter of fact, there are a number of places on the reservation where, if I were patrolling, I would be less than one mile from the Mall itself. An armed citizen confronted the gunman and hesitated at the moment of truth. His hesitation almost cost him his life; as it is, he's still recovering from receiving multiple 7.62x39 rounds.

Had I been able to respond to the call, I would have been entering the building, calling for priority backup and chambering a round in my AR as I went in.

(There were also reports--unconfirmed--that there were TWO POLICE OFFICERS, OFF DUTY, inside the mall that RAN OUT when the shooting started. Cowards. )

My point is this: I have a sworn duty and obligation to protect my fellow man. I took on that mantle when I put on the badge, and do so willingly, gladly, and with humility and respect for the trust placed in me. To carry out that function, there are tools of the job I must have available. These tools might never be used, outside of the firing range--but I must stand ready if the time comes, and my fellow man or woman needs my intervention. Should I have to deliberately put myself in harms way, my mindset is echoed in a quote by a person whose identity I have forgotten: Ich kann nicht anders...Gott hilfe mir!...I can do no other...God help me!

 

[Abndoc]

A cop should have all the tools that are needed to do the job at hand. This should cover as many circumstances as reasonably possible.

My concern is dynamic entry. I think that when these are done, they should be done in an easily reconized uniform. Armor should be worn under the uniform. No ski masks. No civilian clothes. Cops need to look like cops, not thugs.

 

[ahenry]

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.

Not that it really changes your overall point or anything, but your numbers are all wrong.

The Officer Down Memorial Page has 156 total line of duty deaths listed for 2005. BTW, I am pretty sure their list isn’t complete either, as ODMP doesn’t automatically get their numbers from anywhere. Their numbers come from what people have submitted and then they have verified. At any rate, they list 54 total vehicular (including aircraft) on-duty deaths. I excluded the cops killed while directing traffic (11) or as a result of a vehicle pursuit (5), since I don’t figure that’s a normal non-cop activity. This leaves 102 non-vehicle, on-duty deaths, which is about twice the number of vehicular on-duty deaths.

 

[tlm225]

Militarization of police?

The organization of police forces have followed a military pattern for decades. The rank structures, chain of command, wearing of uniforms etc.. were taken directly from the military. This hasn't changed and won't change.

Many decry the change in the way police operate due to what they perceive as militarization. I see it some what differently. SWAT teams were created to perform functions that the typical patrol officer is neither trained or equipped for. The primary advantage of SWAT is teamwork and planning, all the extra goodies and toys are extras. SWAT is not military, SWAT is teamwork and a plan.

SWAT or waiting for SWAT is not appropriate in an active shooter situation such as the Tacoma Mall shooting or a Columbine incident. These have to be handled by the initial responding officers. In order to do that effectively the initial responder should have the tools to do the job, i.e. patrol rifles. If you disagree, ask yourself this: As an officer would you want to go after someone who is armed with even a .30-30 lever action when your only weapons are a side arm and a buckshot loaded 12 gauge? I wouldn't, but I have to because the policies at my department presently prohibit shotgun slugs or rifles.

One poster stated that SWAT is not needed in 99.9% of police actions. Actually it's less that that. As an example, in my city of 29,000 citizens we have logged just over 30,000 police actions this year (this doesn't include traffic stops, tickets and DWI's) During this time our entry team has been deployed nine times for high risk warrants. I suspect that if you check oher cities their numbers will be similiarly low.

 

[Slugthrower]

The police are in a arms race. Politicians are setting the stage in their favor. Legislation to keep "Combat" firearms out of "civilian" hands makes it possible to win that race.
The "War" on drugs is the reason for said arms race. We get what we deserve. Maybe we shouldn't have declared war on ourselves. Ripping at our own guts is not very intelligent. All for your public safety.

This new War on Fear (terror) is for our "safety". Posse comitatus has been circumvented by President Bush.
The government can now use military personnel and arms on the people, for our "safety". The President can use the Army in any state , without permission of the state, or conscript the National Guard for police duty.

Once again we get what we ask for. The answer is simple, even if it is not what we want it to be. Trading liberty for security is bad policy. Maybe the people no longer desire to be free as it fraught with peril.

A person can never have and keep what they do not respect.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
One day the people will return to the concept of personal freedom. Until then we must press forward and hold the banner till the young realize that their freedom is not free.

 

[ahenry]

As far as whether or not law enforcement is dangerous or not consider the number of assaults and injuries towards law enforcement:

For the past 10 year period, there has been a per year average of 7,036 assaults on police officers per 100K, and 2,017 injuries per 100K. Combined, the per year average for the past 10 year period is 9,074 instances per 100K. Or put another way, approximately 1 out of every 11 law enforcement officers will be killed, beaten, or injured every year. I don’t know what the rate is for other jobs, but a roughly one in ten chance of job caused injury, makes law enforcement a dangerous job in my book. My hat's off to the cops out there.

These numbers come from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and the Officer Down Memorial Page, INC.

 

[nobody_special]

providing the rifle is semi-automatic.

Why? I find that a lot of people on these boards think like this--they want unrestricted access to full auto, etc., but the patrol officer should NOT have the same. Why?

The gun-control argument goes, automatic weapons are banned because they are designed for killing a large number of people. If that is true, why should the police have them? In general, I believe the police should not have weapons that aren't available to the general public. (That's assuming such weapons are sufficient, and I think they are. And I don't consider automatic weapons to be generally available, since you have to sign away your rights in order to have one.) Automatic weapons are better suited for military rather than police use. They're a bit too indiscriminate. I'd hate to see them used by riot police for crowd control... sound crazy? It happened in China, 1989, because the people were treated and viewed as the enemy. With two ongoing wars on intangibles, we're not far from that now in the US.

I do have a problem with the military training of police

Again, why? Anyone who has been through basic training or boot camp knows that the best response to an individual shooting at you is to assault through the ambush. To successfully execute the counter assault, one part of the fire team (let's say Officer A) must immediately respond with suppressive fire. Officer B then maneuvers closer, finds cover and lays down suppressive fire. Officer A then maneuvers closer and engages. This continues until the BG surrenders or is rendered unable to continue the attack. The best firearms for achieving fire superiority are full automatic.

Fire superiority? As a peace officer, that shouldn't be part of your vocabulary. Police are not military. Where I used to live (Santa Barbara area... wish I were still there) the police cars all had "to protect and to serve" painted on them. Military training teaches one to destroy a dehumanized enemy, which is quite a different sentiment.

Being armed to the teeth might make you feel better on the job, but ask yourself this: what effect does this have on your attitude?

It sure made me feel better when I responded to a call concerning a man pointing an SKS rifle through his window at people who were passing by.

I never suggested that you shouldn't have a rifle available to you. I suggested that it should perhaps be less visible, as such weapons are only needed in very rare circumstances, and there is a negative psychological effect to having them be highly visible.

Does it make you focus more on the possibility of violent confrontation, and does that affect how you treat people?

Basic patrol procedure: You treat EVERY contact with the possibility that the person or people in front of you will attempt to kill you--until they prove otherwise. You NEVER let your guard down; the day that you treat every contact otherwise is called complacency. That WILL get you hurt or killed if you do it long enough.

There is a substantial difference between being alert for danger, and treating everyone as a dangerous adversary - the latter assumes the people you are supposed to protect are an enemy. And how does military training teach you to handle an enemy?

Sure, things like Columbine happen... but such events are extremely rare, and the disproportionate media coverage tends to cause an emotional reaction that exaggerates the significance of such events far out of proportion.

Agreed! But, when they DO happen, the responding officer does not have the time to wait for someone else to arrive. They must address the issue HERE and NOW. And, I'm willing to bet that the kids in Columbine, the ones huddled in that library listening to the gunshots that killed their classmates did not think that the significance of the event was exaggerated.

Surely that's true. However, in Columbine, the situation was not resolved by police at all - it was resolved when the lunatics killed themselves. Furthermore, I doubt that police with service pistols would have been at a tremendous disadvantage if they had gone in anyway... the engagement range is usually pretty close in an indoor setting, and I don't believe the bad guys wore armor.

And as I said, as an officer of the peace you must accept that there is risk to your job, and you might be called upon to enter into a dangerous situation where you are out-gunned. My opinion is that it's better to accept the situation and be adequately armed, rather than prepare for a worst-case scenario, and go about your every-day peace-keeping duties while projecting an intimidating image.

Would this approach make the job of a police officer more dangerous? Perhaps... but there are benefits as well. Sometimes it isn't worth paying the price for absolute safety.

 

[cuate]

Let Them Have What They Need

More and more we read of BG idiots killing LEOs, I am in favor of them having the firepower they might need and in favor of a lot less ambulance chasing lawyers attempting to reward the guilty and punish the innocent.

The LEOs of whom I speak are NOT Federals as the ATF and FBI as we have seen ATF & FBI in action already here in Texas, down Waco way. Office type, big city, highly educated guys don't make good Commandos, they are better with a briefcase.

 

[Crimp]

IMHO, the main reason policeman carry any weapons is for personal protection against BGs and possibly a slight intimidation factor over the every-day citizens. From that slant, I have no problem with the list of hardware you have. The more the better! But, if you don't live in the inner-cesspools, uhhh, I mean cities, we have let deteriorate, I wonder if you'll ever actually need any of the armory you carry...

Another feeling is, I'd like to have the legal ability to carry what I want for MY personal protection because I can't count on anyone else, including policemen, to protect me and mine.

And I wonder - How many unarmed "Bobbies" in England are killed on the job by BGs? If I'm not mistaken, it seems to me that most police contact with crime is after the fact where no weapons are really needed anyway. When it comes time to go collect a BG from a hideout, etc., I believe a special team is called for - not a beat cop.

I'm certainly not trying to downplay the importance of policemen to society and certainly not your personal value. I would/could not be a policeman and thank you for your service. Be safe.

 

[M14fan]

Trading liberty for security is bad policy. Maybe the people no longer desire to be free as it fraught with peril.

A person can never have and keep what they do not respect.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
One day the people will return to the concept of personal freedom. Until then we must press forward and hold the banner till the young realize that their freedom is not free.

Couldn't have said it better!

 

[Limeyfellow]

There are of course other problems with heavily arming the police in that you can cause criminals to do the same. Imagine if things got like in Mexico and the gangs start pulling out bazookas and 50 cal machine guns. Then how do you go up? The police in armoured vehicles?

The other problem is I tend to like to keep law and peace enforcement seperate from the military way of doing things. They are trained for two specific different roles. Its bad enough what happened in New Orleans when we had plenty of bodies of gang members and such floating down the Mississippi River. Many countries don't trust their governments for a reason and putting want comes to heavily armed paramilitiaries on the street is no different than what we see in Iraq, Palenstine and various other nations. This is why they introduced Posse Comitius. Its why Britain banned firearms in the hands of police officers for most of its existience as an organisation.

I do also find that on the Hollywood shootout it would have been more effective if the police officers didn't grab the first thing that looked military and picked a rifle with a large heavy bullet that would have shredded the body armour to ribbons.

I'm not above the police having rifles and shotgun for support but they should rarely be used indeed and its a very careful balance to maintain between arms and tactics and the freedom of the people.

 

[BreacherUp!]

Didn't a German leader of the last century have heavily armed thugs roaming the street

wow, only nine posts and already the nazi comparisons. what was that internet rule called again where internet blogs on police/govt would, at some point, be compared to the nazis? I need to remember that

 

[G-Cym]

Nazi analogy rule


As for the militarization of police, Yes, I do think it is necessary.


I wonder how many of the people complaining about the loadouts some cops carry are only jealous they can't carry the same. I think that everyday citizens should be able to have just about anything they want as long as no one gets hurt, and no one's property is damaged. I don't care if my neighbor has a SAW, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't harm any property not his own, and doesn't shoot it in his backyard(if he lives in a city). But just because the current laws state that normal civilians can't have that stuff, doesn't mean cops shouldn't either. This should not be a case of "well I can't so neither can you". Cops actually need to use this stuff sometimes, and use it to protect YOU at that. Let them have what they need so they can go home safe, and come back out the next day for abother round of protecting and serving.

 

[Powderman]

I wonder how many of the people complaining about the loadouts some cops carry are only jealous they can't carry the same. I think that everyday citizens should be able to have just about anything they want as long as no one gets hurt, and no one's property is damaged. I don't care if my neighbor has a SAW, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone, doesn't harm any property not his own, and doesn't shoot it in his backyard(if he lives in a city). But just because the current laws state that normal civilians can't have that stuff, doesn't mean cops shouldn't either. This should not be a case of "well I can't so neither can you". Cops actually need to use this stuff sometimes, and use it to protect YOU at that. Let them have what they need so they can go home safe, and come back out the next day for abother round of protecting and serving.

Thank you, sir--or ma'am.

 

[sundog]

Police = protect and serve

Army = kill people and break things

That said, I have no problem with a LEO (got several good friends who are) having adequate means of response to a threat, especially if immediate. That ability does not necessarily equate to militarization. I'd rather be prepared (training and equipment) than not. I have no problem with a LEO having a 'sniper rifle'. Hell, I've got a poor boy's version of an M24, a .308 700 VS with a mil dot scope and bipod, and I'm just a private freaking civilian (okay retired military). I spent 26 years in the Army, and one thing I learned was that when the SHTF it's too late to worry about trying to get ready. You deal with the situation as it is presented.

I don't have a problem with a LEO having a full auto AR - just better be fully trained in the judicious application of fire power and how to neutralize a threat. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. sundog

 

[Heist]

Why? I find that a lot of people on these boards think like this--they want unrestricted access to full auto, etc., but the patrol officer should NOT have the same. Why?

If I don't have unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, and by that I mean at the same price the police would pay, then neither should law enforcement. Or are they so much better, so much more superior than I am?

Judging by the attitudes of some of the LE on this board and others, it would seem that they think so.

 

[DonR101395]

If I don't have unrestricted access to fully automatic weapons, and by that I mean at the same price the police would pay, then neither should law enforcement. Or are they so much better, so much more superior than I am?

Judging by the attitudes of some of the LE on this board and others, it would seem that they think so.

I can't get medicine at the same price as a hospital either. The anti-govt, anti-leo, anti-anything that doesn't make me feel good about myself posts on here have gotten out of hand lately. A few folks need to grow a pair, stop whining, and start changing what they don't like about their govt and leo, if it makes them so mad they need whine to the world about how unfair it is.


BTW: I'm not leo, nor do I play one on t.v.
Whoever takes this as a personal attack, you are the ones I'm talking about. If the mods want to ban me, so be it.

Powder, my apologies for hijacking your thread with my rant.

 

[sundog]

Slugthrower, wanna explain how posse comitatus has been circumvented? For my ettification. Thanks.

And I had another thought while having brunch. I suspect there will be more attacks CONUS, unfortunately. First responders are the LEOs, fire, EMTs, and yes, civilians. Anyone know what the bad guys are gonna throw at us? Nice to have people who have at had at least some training. People who are well trained, with some experience, have skill sets that are transferrable. If the threat doesn't look like what they've trained for, but because they have trained, they're further ahead than someone who hasn't. And they have gear and are familiar with its employment.

Heist, I don't understand your cost comment, and how that has anything to do with legal availability. I am sure that not everyone should have untettered access to ANY auto weapon they want. I also think that the NFA39 (prohibition played a major role in gang violence) and CGA68 (several political assasinations) were nothing more than political knee jerk reactions to problems that did not exist. I look on both as unconstitutional. I think income tax is too, but I still pay it. Point is if we can't change it we have to live within it, unless of course, you break the law. If everyone did that its called anarchy. Our system ain't perfect, but it works pretty good most of the time.