Militarization of Police--Necessary?

DonR101395

I can't get medicine at the same price as a hospital either.

Bad analogy, to do it properly would be to compare doctors, nurses, etc. If a doctor and Joe Blow need cancer meds, does the doctor have to pay $1,000 while Joe Blow has to pay $15,000? The answer is of course not. The doctor has to pay the same price for the meds that Joe Blow has to pay for. This example is assuming that both have to pay out of pocket for their meds.

I (Joe Blow) on the other hand, have to pay well over $15,000 for a legal M-16 while Mr. Police officer has to pay only $1,000 for a legal M-16. That is not equal access.

Sure the Police officer's M-16 may technically belong to the police department and only be able to use it for police approved activities. But I can't go out and form a club of gun owners and buy $1,000 M-16's and use it at the clubs events. Police belong to a special "club" where they get special privilages under the law to purchase a product.
 
DonR101395 said:
If the mods want to ban me, so be it.
Click to expand...

I always wonder at this comment. Is it a challenge? Is it resignation at what you think is about to happen? Is it a case of "I'll say what I want and rules be damned"? I think it is intended to add conviction to comments made. With no posting rules broken that I can see, it seems unnecessary and I'll stop there.

You always have the option of keeping your trap shut and not posting.
 
I always wonder at this comment. Is it a challenge? Is it resignation at what you think is about to happen? Is it a case of "I'll say what I want and rules be damned"? I think it is intended to add conviction to comments made. With no posting rules broken that I can see, it seems unnecessary and I'll stop there.
Click to expand...

I'll take frustration for 300 Bud:o I can tell you in this case since this is the only time I believe I've used this phrase, I wasn't sure if I did break any forum rules, but was too frustrated to look them up. So, I figured if I get banned for breaking them, I'd take my medicine.
 
Bad analogy, to do it properly would be to compare doctors, nurses, etc. If a doctor and Joe Blow need cancer meds, does the doctor have to pay $1,000 while Joe Blow has to pay $15,000? The answer is of course not. The doctor has to pay the same price for the meds that Joe Blow has to pay for. This example is assuming that both have to pay out of pocket for their meds.

I (Joe Blow) on the other hand, have to pay well over $15,000 for a legal M-16 while Mr. Police officer has to pay only $1,000 for a legal M-16. That is not equal access.

Sure the Police officer's M-16 may technically belong to the police department and only be able to use it for police approved activities. But I can't go out and form a club of gun owners and buy $1,000 M-16's and use it at the clubs events. Police belong to a special "club" where they get special privilages under the law to purchase a product.
Click to expand...

Wrong Crosshair, it's a good analogy. I compared the hospital (administration) to myself (citizen).
The problem with your analogy is you're trying to interchange Department (administration) and leo (citizen) where it suits your argument.
Mr Policeman's employer pays $1,000 for the department M16
Mr Policeman pays $15,000 for his M16.
Dr Cancer patient pays $15,000
Mr Cancer Patient pays $15,000
Dr Cancer patient's employer pays $0
So in the end it looks like the hospital still made out. They made $30,000 while the cancer patients lost $30,000.
 
The issue of weapon disparity is something of a red herring in my view. Remember that a few brave souls with old revolvers stood off the Wehrmacht in the Warsaw slums for months. (And yes, I'm sure they would have preferred some better weapons too.)

A secondary problem, IMO, is the exclusion of The People from keeping the peace and reinforcing the thin blue line. How many times do we hear about some crime and the police urging people "don't get involved, just call the police"? This is counter to the basis of a good republic where the people themselves are supposed to be in charge. The current mindset of many in public service (politicians, bureaucrats and police officials alike) is that enforcing the laws is too complicated and specialized for Joe Average and he should just lock his doors and call the cops.

The people, collectively, hire a police force to do a job -- maintaining the peace and preserving order -- that they, themselves cannot do on a day to day basis. We pay the officers to be the ever-vigilant town watchman who is charged with apprehending criminals and ensuring their prosecution. We, the people, are busy building careers and making money to raise our families and cannot drop everything anytime a minor offense occurs. The police are hired in our stead, as proxies. But the basic keeping of public order rests with we, the people.

While it may be wise and prudent for public officials to advise citizens to call police if they spot a wanted criminal, prosecuting them for apprehending a criminal at gunpoint (i.e. charges of brandishing) turns justice on its head. This is equivilent to a maid suing her employer for sweeping up a bottle broken by the butler.

Likewise, prosecuting a homeowner for coming to the assistance of a neighbor during a burglary or robbery (typically on a charge of a loaded gun in public, brandishing or some other misdemeanor) discourages citizens from participating with the police in keeping criminals in fear and may encourage the criminals that they have little to fear from the people they victimize.

The police need the tools to perform the job we hired them to do. There is a reasonable limit to what we provide to each officer and what we provide to specially trained units. I doubt many of us would see a need for a PD to own an 81mm mortar, even if it was supposed to be for SWAT. Likewise, I don't think arming officers with M16's in urban patrol cars is necessary, although some form of semi-auto carbine could be issued for qualified officers. Putting full-auto weapons in units risks their being stolen (it does happen infrequently with shotguns) and due to liability issues the semi-auto will reinforce the need to make aimed shots. In some of the more rural areas, it may make more sense for officers to have full-auto guns (e.g. for Arizona or Nevada state troopers for example) since their back-up is usually a long way off.

The counterpoint is that the police must be responsible to both the law and the citizens of the community they serve. The police have a vested interest in maintaining a good working relationship with the community, one that includes recognition of the citizen as a vital part of the law enforcement team.
 
Sure the Police officer's M-16 may technically belong to the police department and only be able to use it for police approved activities. But I can't go out and form a club of gun owners and buy $1,000 M-16's and use it at the clubs events. Police belong to a special "club" where they get special privilages under the law to purchase a product.
Click to expand...

Well, to belong to this "special club", IF I had access to full auto, the only time it could be fired is:

1. During mandated qualification, and:
2. In response to someone slinging bullets at ME--or praparing to do same.

So, for the simple privilege of being "high and mighty", all I have to do is wait for the one or two times per year that I CAN shoot--or possibly get myself killed. Wow, what a perk!

Oh, and by the way--since to you, law enforcement is a "club", please feel free to proceed to your nearest police department, and sign right up! We can always use more club members!!

We're kinda picky about membership--you have to go through a background investigation that will probably take at least 6 months to a year. You also have to be in fairly good physical shape, with not too much slack cut for age. You'll have to go to school again, for about 4 1/2 to 5 months.

After that, you get to participate in all kind of FUN club activities!

Like:

1. Working rotating shifts, with rotating days off.
2. Spending LOTS of time away from your family.
3. Having your neighbors knocking on your door all hours of the day and night because they have "this little problem".
4. Participating in physical conditioning, both aerobic and anaerobic, by wrestling, rolling, punching, hitting and kicking--and by having the same done to YOU, on a regular basis!
5. Cleaning puke from the back seat, walls, and partition of your patrol unit.
6. Having to place hands on people with weeping ulcerative sores, smelling like death and fecal matter and putting them in the back of your patrol unit.
7. Cleaning said feces from the back of your patrol unit.

You also get, as an added bonus:

Being called all kinds of GREAT names, like ****, *******, ********, including the all time favorites, "jack booted thug", "taillight chaser", "road nazi", and other neat stuff.

But wait, there's more!!!

So come on! Join our exclusive club! You, too, can get to play with all the neato toys, and get shot at in the bargain! :rolleyes:
 
On which side of a debate you stand, your emotional investment in that position and how much patience you have and are willing to expend as a participant in said debate may determine, or at least go a long way toward, success in conveying the ideas and beliefs you hold and convincing others of that position.

Ranting does nothing but convince the other side that you are convinced, and usually convinced with more emotion than with reason. The challenge is to convey that reason to the other side with patience, conviction and intelligence. Preferably, with literacy and civility.

What do we have here?
 
This comes from a podunk, 26 yr old cop, so take it for what it is worth.

I, for one, am completely against the current trend of the militarization of police. However, I am 100% for an increase in professionalism in the field.

I do not feel it right that we have Class 3 weapons when our employers, the very people we serve, are unable to freely do so. Call it department ownership, whatever, its simple semantics.

I find it wholly unacceptable that the current trend is for BDU style uniforms, bloused pants, baseball caps, and T-shirts. I feel that the people I serve deserve to see a professional image, not a storm trooper. I feel that Class A/B uniforms with a pin on badge, collar brass, and nameplate project a far more civil image than the above described uniform.

Leather duty gear is a much more professional option than nylon. I am not ignorant enough to dismiss that the more casual uniform has its place in certain situations, but I also feel that the proper uniform should be fielded far more often than parades and ceremonies.

I feel we should strive to make the public actually respect and support us, instead of bitching when they do not, yet doing nothing to change that attitude. I think that we must return to the time when we were Peace Officers, and not Law Enforcement Officers. I have found that one can get much further in this job by remembering that we work for the public, all of them, not just the good ones.

One must remember that , often, the only difference between the guy in the back seat of the squad car, and the one driving, is circumstance.


There it is, my opinion, for what its worth.
 
Posse Comitatus Circumvented

Originally Posted by Public Law 109-364
"John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy."

Quote:
§ 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

(a) USE OF ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.--

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
(b) NOTICE TO CONGRESS.--

The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of the authority.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0061017-9.html


Quote:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 17, 2006

President's Statement on H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007"

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 5122, the "John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007" (the "Act"). The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, for national security-related energy programs, and for maritime security-related transportation programs.

Several provisions of the Act call for executive branch officials to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislation, or purport to regulate the manner in which the President formulates recommendations to the Congress for legislation. These provisions include sections 516(h), 575(g), 603(b), 705(d), 719(b), 721(e), 741(e), 813, 1008, 1016(d), 1035(b)(3), 1047(b), and 1102 of the Act, section 118(b)(4) of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031 of the Act, section 2773b of title 10 as amended by section 1053 of the Act, and section 403 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 403 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe these provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as the President deems necessary and expedient.

The executive branch shall construe sections 914 and 1512 of the Act, which purport to make consultation with specified Members of Congress a precondition to the execution of the law, as calling for but not mandating such consultation, as is consistent with the Constitution's provisions concerning the separate powers of the Congress to legislate and the President to execute the laws.

A number of provisions in the Act call for the executive branch to furnish information to the Congress or other entities on various subjects. These provisions include sections 219, 313, 360, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1227, 1402, and 3116 of the Act, section 427 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 932 of the Act, and section 1093 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) as amended by section 1061 of the Act. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, the national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe as advisory section 1011(b)(2) of the Act, which purports to prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from retiring a specified warship from operational status unless, among other things, a treaty organization established by the U.S. and foreign nations gives formal notice that it does not desire to maintain and operate that warship. If construed as mandatory rather than advisory, the provision would impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs and as Commander in Chief.

The executive branch shall construe section 1211, which purports to require the executive branch to undertake certain consultations with foreign governments and follow certain steps in formulating and executing U.S. foreign policy, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authorities to conduct the Nation's foreign affairs and to supervise the unitary executive branch.

As is consistent with the principle of statutory construction of giving effect to each of two statutes addressing the same subject whenever they can co-exist, the executive branch shall construe section 130d of title 10, as amended by section 1405 of the Act, which provides further protection against disclosure of certain homeland security information in certain circumstances, as in addition to, and not in derogation of, the broader protection against disclosure of information afforded by section 892 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other law protecting broadly against disclosure of such information.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 17, 2006.

Sundog. Does this clarify circumvention of posse comitatus?
 
I find it wholly unacceptable that the current trend is for BDU style uniforms, bloused pants, baseball caps, and T-shirts.
Click to expand...

I agree with the uniforms. Some of those have gone quite militaristic. I often wonder why a SWAT guy needs camoflage (with the exception of long distance snipers in a hostage type situation), cause where are you going to hide in the middle of the street?

Taken from the Reno Gazette Journal:
funnyswatteam.jpg

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006612290407

Here they are running around in camoflage, so the BG should have trouble seeing them I guess... But dude in the back has a BRIGHT orange (hunting safety color) shotgun on his back... Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the camoflage?
 
No, not really. Just more of the same verbage as came out of the lawsuit by Rudy Perpidge (sp?) from MN or MI when he was governor some years ago and refused to allow guard units to be activated for [I think] Desert I. The Feds have control of fed assets, which includes National Guard in their federal mission. They still fill a military mission, which includes martial law, and are not state police.
 
I would rather the police are trained have it and not need it than not have it and need it. I don't see a choice. The only issue I see with it is the improper use of SWAT style teams. I don't think its an option in some areas of whether or not to do it.

If I lived down south along the Texas-Mexico Border I would want my county to have a SWAT Team armed for low level conflicts with LAVs and some heavy duty machine guns. Because the Drug cartel guys across the border have some heavy stuff.

In some cities they are needed so when the time comes that the bad guys haul out the heavy hitters the good guys can end the situation quick.

The issue shouldnt be should they have it. The issue should be that it is used properly.
 
I think police should have access to any and all weaponry and equipment necessary for their job.

that being said I read liliysdad's post and agree with the uniform/professional aspect of it. I don't think cops need to wear ties, but I've seen regular non-swat guys wearing a vest over his shirt and a tazer in a cross draw holster on the vest. Odds are that guy will never need the vest or tazer, but I could imagine plenty of times where a more professional attire (vest UNDER shirt and tazer on off side or drop leg holster) would help.
 
So, for the simple privilege of being "high and mighty", all I have to do is wait for the one or two times per year that I CAN shoot--or possibly get myself killed. Wow, what a perk!
Click to expand...

You act like being a police officer is the only job where you can get killed. Alot of jobs have the possibility of death or dismemberment as a condition of the job. There are many jobs that are far more dangerous than that of a police officer.

OK, so mabee you don't get to play with the select fire guns. I was wrong on that. I can admit it. I was wrong. I am sorry.

However, you are still a civilian. The local police department is a civilian government organisation. Yet you get access to full auto weapons. In places where they limit magazine capacity you can get "normal" capacity magazines. In essence, you get special treatment over everyone else. Are you a civilian or military?

Oh, and by the way--since to you, law enforcement is a "club", please feel free to proceed to your nearest police department, and sign right up! We can always use more club members!!
Click to expand...

Do you think I haven't tried? I have no depth perception and require very strong corrective lenses. I am almost legaly blind without them, though I can see fine with them. I have looked for ways around it, but there simply no way that I can serve in the military or police with my eyesight problems. Nobody will take me. Corrective surgery is currently not an option for me.

After that, you get to participate in all kind of FUN club activities!
Click to expand...

Alot of people have to do those things you listed as a part of their regular job. Most of those you list are nothing special. I have to cleap up puke, pee, fecal matter, blood, etc. I have to do it with a smile on my face, I have to be quick and get every bit, I have to remember to fill the TP, AND I have to do it with some lady, who is too lazy to go up front, telling me to hurry up.

Being called all kinds of GREAT names, like ****, *******, ********, including the all time favorites, "jack booted thug", "taillight chaser", "road nazi", and other neat stuff.
Click to expand...

Looking at all the effed up laws we have are you seriously surprised? Pulling me over for no seatbelt? Setting up a sobriety checkpoint? Busting down doors at 2AM so you can sieze 2oz of pot? The whole failure we call the war on drugs? Not that they are all your fault, it's the polititions who write those. Though getting called names is also not unique to your job either, just ask bartender, waiters, people who work retail at the returns counter.

I don't hate police officers as individuals, most are great to talk to. I DO hate the policies and laws that they have to enforce and I DO hate the many of the ways they use to enforce those laws. You guys get caught in the crossfire of bad laws, bad polititions, and bad policies.
 
So why do you blame the officers carrying out the f---ed up laws instead of the lawmakers? That's illogical.
 
You act like being a police officer is the only job where you can get killed. Alot of jobs have the possibility of death or dismemberment as a condition of the job. There are many jobs that are far more dangerous than that of a police officer.
Click to expand...

Let me put a disclaimer up here first; I do not work for a PD, I am not a “cop”. That said, I believe that the dangers of police work are different than the dangers of other jobs*. A logger that gets killed by a falling log, while tragic, was in the way of that log for the sole purpose of putting money in his pocket. I don’t mean to sound callous, but the only reason he’s taking those risks is for his own personal self-interest. When a cop gets killed, it’s because something was a danger to you or me, and he stepped between us and that danger. Maybe not in a direct way like a bodyguard, but the purpose of the job put him in that situation. I can promise you that cops might like some of the “beenies” of the job, but none of them put themselves in the situations they do for the “beenies”. So what if a cop has (err, had) access to higher capacity magazines? So what if he is issued a full auto firearm? So what if department letterhead allows him to purchase a weapon at a lower price that non cops? The issue isn’t that a cop has access to those things, but that non-cops don’t. Don’t take your frustration (legitimate frustration) at the asinine laws that infringe on your rights, out on some cop that’s trying to stack the deck in his favor as much as possible so he can do his job more effectively.

*The dangers of some other jobs such as firemen are in the same category as police, and deserve the same admiration and respect.
 
However, you are still a civilian.
Click to expand...

Never said I wasn't. :)

Do you think I haven't tried? I have no depth perception and require very strong corrective lenses. I am almost legaly blind without them, though I can see fine with them. I have looked for ways around it, but there simply no way that I can serve in the military or police with my eyesight problems. Nobody will take me. Corrective surgery is currently not an option for me.
Click to expand...

For this, I am really, truly sorry. It sounds like you have tried and have been disappointed, possibly many times. If I may offer some words of encouragement...

DON'T GIVE UP!!!

Things can and do change, my friend. Consider this: when I got out of the Army, I thought that there was no way for me to EVER be a cop. EVER. There I was, 32 years old and diabetic! I take insulin! I thought I was going to have to sit on the sidelines in another career forever.

Then, along came the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What it says is this: You can no longer be excused from a job for a medical condition, IF you can perform the basic functions of the job.

I saw specials on TV, and one notable episode of COPS, that featured a cop in Florida with ONE LEG!!!:eek: :D

Suddenly, it seemed that my dream was possible.

After a few more months, I tried out--and was accepted--as a Tribal Cop for the Muckleshoot Police Department. Unfortunately, after 2 years, it was disbanded by the Tribal Council.

Now, I am a Reserve Officer for the Puyallup Tribal Police. Yes, I am diabetic--but I still have an assigned patrol unit. I am a Level 1 Reserve, which means that I can go in service at will, and I patrol alone with the full authority, faith and credit of the Puyallup Indian Nation. While I am in my jurisdiction (which is pretty much all of Pierce County, Washington), I am required to have my service pistol, cuffs, at least one reload, badge and commissioning credentials with me. To the best of my knowledge, we are one of the few Tribal Departments in the State of Washington to be fully cross-commissioned with Pierce County, and the City of Tacoma.

And, as soon as they have another entry level test, I will take it, pass it, and hopefully get selected to go full time. I have also been encouraged by a lot of the senior officers of the Auburn Police Department to try out with them.

By the way, I'm 47 years old--and unfortunately, still diabetic.

In other words, KEEP TRYING! Do NOT give up, and NEVER lose hope. Try some of the smaller Departments--from there, you can lateral in to another one, after you get some time under your belt. But, DON"T QUIT!

Alot of people have to do those things you listed as a part of their regular job. Most of those you list are nothing special. I have to cleap up puke, pee, fecal matter, blood, etc. I have to do it with a smile on my face, I have to be quick and get every bit, I have to remember to fill the TP, AND I have to do it with some lady, who is too lazy to go up front, telling me to hurry up.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're in a housekeeping position. Friend, my hat is off to you!

As I mentioned, being a Reservist is part time, and volunteer to boot. Something has to pay the bills, and my full time job is working as a Gaming Enforcement Agent for the Muckleshoot Tribe. (We have the biggest Casino in Washington State--shameless plug follows--check us out at www.muckleshootcasino.com). While at work, I see the housekeepers working tirelessly to keep the place clean. Some folks would probably be surprised to see the amount of garbage people can generate in a short period of time.

When there is a spill, housekeeping gets called. When a toilet overflows, housekeeping gets called. When there is a HAZMAT or biohazard spill--there's housekeeping, cleaning the place up. And, for the most part, they do it with a great attitude and a smile.

In closing, let me reiterate--if you want to get into police work, do it! Do NOT give up! Your dreams die only when you stop believing in them. You can do it! :D
 
Lily's Dad, once again thanks for a reasoned response to a heated discussion.

One concept that's being missed here, is the effect of paramilitary uniforms on public psychology. In some areas, a sizeable proportion of the population are legal immigrants from countries cursed by developed militarization of the police. Obviously, one of the more important aspects making a patrol officer effective, is how they are able to communicate with sectors of the public. In the aforementioned communication, that communication would be precluded. So is the 'neato' aspect of dressing in such a manner, worth losing part of the community rapport that is needed to function to 'protect and serve'? If one is an occupation force, fine it doesn't matter; but normal law enforcement shouldn't function in that manner.

Speaking from experience (quit working for the system back in the late 80's), a normal police uniform, as professional as it is, is often enough to compromise communication. And that is with those who done no wrong, but are nervous in those contexts. So why would someone who should be there to serve, want to go beyond what is necessary to convey recognition, authority, and professionalism? It's not necessary, nor from the aspects of doing the job well, especially smart.

At times, alas, there are those who do get into LE, because of the authority kick, ability to carry weapons, or to just be a uniformed 'bad ass'. Departmental policies which encourage the attire of combat gear (BDU's and such) will also encourage idiot attitudes by those who are a little on the authoritarian delusional side. Granted these types do tend to leave, or get real...but until they do no reason to have elements which ensure excess.

As far as the weapons, whatever. It's more the training attitude which is the benefit, or the danger. "Combat mindset" have, as many incidents have demonstrated, gotten quite a few neighborhoods shot up. And not just by the felonic loons which often initiated the whole situation. A defense that, the slime started it, doesn't work. LEO's should be professionals which do have to conduct themselves with restraint in very difficult situations. That can be done, but not when the training is premised on combat parameter
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top