Police Or Commandos?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll reiterate some of the views already expressed. The fancy equipment doesn't bother me at all (although sometimes it seems like a taser is just an excuse for lazy police work). It's all the guys that join the department so they can be on the SWAT team, and have a full-time job of kicking ass and taking names. But then they end up on regular patrol doing menial things like talking to citizens and filling out reports. Maybe even enforcing a law every now and then. Unfortunately, sometimes they find other outlets for their testosterone.

It seems this is how the public increasingly perceives police, and I think it may be driving away some of the good guys.

On another note, it's a shame to see all these resources devoted to militarizing the police for something that may never happen when you consider all the real and present problems we have.
 
You should realize the culture was changing even without the assistance of television and even newspapers. It started changing as soon as people began arriving here from the old country, be it England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain or France. Eventually, to begin with, they stopped being English, Irish, Dutch, etc., etc. It can't be stopped, though you may not perceive it happening. The people are growing in new soil and a new kind of person emerges. But I agree it has been downhill since 1965--or is that 1910?

I saw a few rather serious arguments when I was small that originated with people attempting to discipline their neighbor's children. But regarding the police, militarized or not, they are perceived quite differently in different places. I suspect that in places where they actually are your neighbors, they are seen as part of the community. In places where more of them live over in the next country or outside of the city, it might be a little more difficult to have those good community relations that are so important to successful police work. Without the general support of the community, the police are bound to fail, and that doesn't even touch on bad things the police themselves (as individuals) might do, which we won't discuss.

Now, regarding the mass media, it is just as likely to be right-wing as it is to be left-wing. If you don't think so, then turn on your radio.
 
it is just as likely to be right-wing as it is to be left-wing. If you don't think so, then turn on your radio.

Although I concur that changes are ongoing I do believe we see things in our society that would not have existed or not have existed to the extent they do without mass media involvement.

As far as right or left though most media seems to have a strong left slant... Or maybe I have all the wrong channels...:)

No certainly our police shouldnt be ready for military action against the general population but in reality I think its more likely that its big boys given money and permission to play with toys.. not alot more....
 
Please cite the laws you mention.

The phrase "I seem to recall" should give you a clue I was unsure of this.
If I had U.S. Code at that time to site, I would have done so in the post.
However, 10 USC, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 45, Sections 771 and 772 may be a starting point.
As exceptions can be made under Section 772, there may be one I can't find in place.

I'm sorry if my post was confusing.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you BGutzman that there is a strong element of mass media involved in movements but that has been true for a long time. Newspapers used to be considered a mass media. In fact, I wonder how much the actual presence of a camera creates an event. It becomes a "happening," to use a word from the late 1960s. As far as the radio is concerned, just tune across the dial until you hear someone shouting.

Does anyone think maybe that the present situation (as far as the situation is actually what we think it is) may be what we wanted and got? I recall is a college class on either juvenille deliquency (what an old-fashioned term) or criminology someone suggesting that if we just locked up more people, then crime would go down. That's pretty much what happened, you know, yet no one here believes crime went down, no matter what anyone says.

I already mentioned that Nixon ran on a law and order platform. People were upset with the changes in the social order that were happening then. People will vote for law and order over anything.
 
Common sense should rule this issue. My local LE probably doesn't need to spend a million bucks on tactical equipment to handle a few dopeheads and drunks. LAPD or NYPD on the other hand, who might need to stop a gang war, riots, or God forbid, another terrorist attack might need to be allocated some funds. And I am hesitant to sit here and say LEOs should be regulated by limiting equipment. Limiting authority is the way to do that, not by crippling their ability to respond to real threats. My $0.02.
 
Does anyone think maybe that the present situation (as far as the situation is actually what we think it is) may be what we wanted and got? I recall is a college class on either juvenile delinquency (what an old-fashioned term) or criminology someone suggesting that if we just locked up more people, then crime would go down. That's pretty much what happened, you know, yet no one here believes crime went down, no matter what anyone says.

There are a lot of reasons crime has dropped so much, not the least of which is the high rate of incarceration in the US. Aging population, high quality of life, huge government welfare payments. All these lead to a lower crime rate. More education would help too.
 
BT, Nixon ran on law and order, and state's rights. true.

But he also ran against George McGovern (war hero, and apparently a very nice man, but not known for foreign policy, etc) and Edwin Muskie (another good man, in fact a friendly acquaintance of my father's - I met Ed Muskie when I was 8 or 9 - but a man who wasn't ready for the mudslinging of national level politics, and one from a small state to boot).

So you may be oversimplifying just a bit.
 
Of course I'm oversimplifying. That's the way forums are.

Nixon was the first president I voted for, too, and the polling place was just down the hall from the very classroom where I took those criminology classes. Paper ballots, too.
 
Nixon, college, states rights, and law and order?
That'll be "who are Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young", Alex.
 
The problem with police using military equipment is that, sooner or later, they feel justified doing military type things with it.

Terminology doesn't help, either. Since the 1960s, our govt has been "at war" with something. Not someone, something, like poverty, or drugs, etc.

War is not police work. It is war, and the same rules do not apply. Blend the two, and both suffer. And that's where we are now. Our major urban areas have SWAT teams, which is fine, except that the Special part of Special Weapons And Tactics has now become Routine.

SWAT teams are used for nearly everything above routine traffic enforcement. Any resistance is met with overwhelming force. And that is pervading all levels of police work.

I can remember a time when police were not allowed to shoot people except in clear self defense, such as when shot at. I know of cases where criminals escaped arrest (temporarily) because they didn't shoot at the cops, so the cops couldn't shoot at them, and were unable to physically catch them.

Did this cost officers lives from time to time? Yes, certainly. Are we better off today, when anything less than instant obiedence when a weapon is suspected to be present, can bring a hail of bullets from police weapons?

I'm not sure.

Blame in on society, or tv, or anything you want, the fact is that police today seem more likely to shoot suspects, and shoot them more times than in the past.

Of course, they are at war with crime. Automatic weapons, helmets, body armor, they don't re-enforce that image in the minds of the police, do they?
 
Oh just stop...Please?

MTT TL Said:

[I]"On nearly all military installations the civilian police force have arrest powers."[/I]

Ahhh....NO they DO NOT!!!!!!!!!

CONGRESS PASSES DoD BILL WITHOUT ARREST AUTHORITY 12/15/2011

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, was disappointed that one of the organization's top legislative priorities was not in the conference report on H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012."

"Our provision was a victim of haste and process," Canterbury explained. "In each case where there was a provision in one version of the bill, but no corresponding provision in the other, that provision was simply removed so that the conferees could expedite the conclusion of the report. Our language appeared only in the Senate bill, and so it was removed without any real consideration by the conferees."

Statutory arrest authority for civilian law enforcement officers employed by DoD was identified as a top legislative priority of the FOP by the National Board of Trustees during the Spring 2011 meeting. This decision was later affirmed by the delegates at the FOP's Biennial Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah in August. A House bill, H.R. 324, has also been introduced.

"Civilian law enforcement officers employed by the DoD are in need of clarification with respect to the terms 'arrest' and 'apprehension'," Canterbury explained. "We helped craft language that would give the Secretary of Defense the authority to grant arrest powers to its civilian law enforcement officers and codify those powers in the statute just like the six DoD agencies whose officers already have this authority."

"It's an issue we've been working on for several years," Canterbury said. "We may not have made it over the goal line this time, but I am hopeful that we can get this change made in the Second Session."

44AMP said:

[I]"Our major urban areas have SWAT teams, which is fine, except that the Special part of Special Weapons And Tactics has now become Routine.
SWAT teams are used for nearly everything above routine traffic enforcement. Any resistance is met with overwhelming force. And that is pervading all levels of police work
"[/I]

I understand your assertion. It is NOT based in fact. SWAT is in movies and the news. It is NO WAY routine above traffic stops, or pervasive.
:confused:
 
Last edited:
I can understand some of the feelings shared in this thread, but just because an agency has been loaned the use of firearms, vehicles, etc, I dont see a direct tie to the police becoming commandos or militerized. The equipment is just a tool, its how its used that matters.

Have I known of some places going full out with emergency response teams, armoured vehicles, etc? Yep. I know alot of the larger cities and the states also get the majority of what is available, but also for smaller areas, its a help as well. It all comes back to attitude, and how the leadership wants to proceed from there. Also, the process for getting the equipment usually isnt easy either. My agency has 2 winchester model 12's and 1 Colt M16A1 that are on loan to us, after a few years of trying. The shotguns are WELL worn, and the M16A1, seemed to be new. They are inventoried every year as well. I cant say that by recieving these 3 firearms that it has turned anyone I work with, or myself into a commando. Its just a tool. I'd say its better that it be used in some way then to eventually be cut up the Military.
 
Last edited:
apc.jpg


Has it come to this? Nine mm spray and pray ain't got a chance.

http://current.com/entertainment/**...teams-get-insane-new-militarized-weaponry.htm
 
Ahhh....NO they DO NOT!!!!!!!!!

Do 2.

If you are talking about statutory powers than no, no one on base (including the MP's) have that power. In US v Banks the courts found that even though MPs do not have statutory power they can arrest people. Only commissioned officers can arrest people, but I am not in the mood to do so right now.

However, arresting people is part of their job (MPs and DOD cops) and they do it all the time. I said nearly all states, not all. Most states have recognized this. Example:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/01-1005.pdf

Not all bases are in compliance with HR 218 training requirements, therefore they are more limited. Some base commanders don't like or trust the DOD cops. I can give a laundry list of reasons for this but it varies widely from base to base.
 
Inaccuracy in interpretation...

does NOT trump black and white US Code, DoDInsts, AR's etc...

We agree DoD Civilian cops have no statutory ARREST authority. (10 USC)
Read DoD 5500.25 and related regs. They specifically state no civilian components of DoD civilian police are to be cross sworn with state/county powers. Only certain, very rare installations that were prior approved by Secretary Level approval (Not local/regional commanders) were grandfathered. Now for an example of DoD department level policy on arrest, read AR 190-56 (Army Civilian Police Program) It specifically prohibits Army civilian police from arresting civilians. They can only "detain" and then transfer offenders to "appropriate civilian law enforcement" as soon as practical. (Like MP's) BTW Only Officers (MP's) can arrest other Military officers. The California case you cited was another perfect example of a STATE trying to recognize a class of Federal employees as legitimate "LEO's".
However, unless the federal agency agrees to accept the authority being offered by the individual state, it is meaningless...
:rolleyes:
 
Anyone remember when this happened? As entered into the Congressional Record July 18, 1995 by Sen. Charles Grassley after it was found that the BATF had acquired 22 OV-10D military aircraft.

The furor over this acquisition caused the aircraft to be eventually returned.

Congressional Record entry 1 of 2

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

ATF'S PURCHASE OF 22 OV-10D AIRCRAFT (Senate - July 18, 1995)

[Page: S10188]

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, a news article in this morning's Washington Times says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms recently purchased 22 OV-10D aircraft from the Defense Department.

These aircraft were used by the Marine Corps in the Vietnam war for close air support in combat. They were also used in Operation Desert Storm for night observation.

The aircraft are heavily weapons-capable, especially from a law-enforcement perspective. ATF says the planes have been stripped of their weapons. Their purpose, according to ATF, is for surveillance. The planes can locate people on the ground by detecting their body heat.

It's no secret that the ATF is undergoing intense public scrutiny. It has done some real bone-headed things. It has been criticized for enforcing the law while crossing the line of civil rights protections.

ATF's credibility will be even further tested the next 2 weeks when joint committee hearings are held in the other body on the Waco matter. And the Senate Judiciary Committee also will hold hearings on Waco in September.

I raise this issue today, Mr. President, because the purchase of these aircraft in the current climate might continue to feed the public's skepticism, and erode the pubic's confidence in our law enforcement agencies.

For that reason, it is incumbent upon ATF to fully disclose and fully inform the public as to the purchase of these aircraft.

First, what, specifically, will they be used for?

Second, where will they be located?

Third, what assurances are there that the planes will remain unarmed?

The sooner these questions are answered by ATF--openly and candidly--the less chance there is that the public's skepticism will grow.

Mr. President, the continued credibility of the ATF is on the line, in my judgment. At times such as these, when scrutiny is at its highest, the best strategy is to go on the offense. Spare no expense in disclosing fully and swiftly. Because full and swift disclosure is the first step in restoring credibility.

The ATF's credibility is important not just for itself, but for law enforcement in general. There is much work to do to restore the public's trust and confidence. I hope that ATF will step up to the challenge and provide the necessary assurances.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Times article, written by Jerry Seper, be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

From the Washington Times, July 18, 1995

[FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES, JULY 18, 1995]

ATF Gets 22 Planes To Aid Surveillance

WEAPONS-CAPABLE AIRCRAFT REPAINTED

(BY JERRY SEPER)

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has obtained 22 counterinsurgency, heavy-weapons-capable military aircraft.

The 300-mph OV-10D planes--one of several designations used by the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War for gunfire and missile support of ground troops, and by the Air Force during Operation Desert Storm for night observation--have been transferred from the Defense Department to ATF.

The turboprop aircraft, which will be used for day and night surveillance support, were designed to locate people on the ground through their body heat.

When used by the military services, the planes were equipped with infrared tracking systems, ground-mapping radar, laser range-finders, gun sights and 20mm cannons.

ATF spokeswoman Susan McCarron confirmed yesterday that the agency had obtained the aircraft but noted they had been stripped of their armament. She said that nine of the OV-10Ds were operational and that the remaining 13 were being used for spare parts.

`We have nine OV-10Ds that are unarmed; they have no weapons on them,' Ms. McCarron said. `They are being used for surveillance and photography purposes. The remainder are being used for spare parts.'

Ms. McCarron said the aircraft were obtained by ATF from the Defense Department `when DOD was getting rid of them,' and that other agencies also had received some of the airplanes.

General Service Administration records show that some of the unarmed aircraft also were transferred to the Bureau of Land Management for use in survey work, while others went to the California Forestry Department for use in spotting fires and in directing ground and aerial crews in combating them.

Other models of the OV-10 also are being used by officials in Washington state for nighttime surveillance of fishing vessels suspected of overfishing the coastal waters.

The transfer of the aircraft to ATF comes at a time of heightened public skepticism and congressional scrutiny of the agency's ability to enforce the law without trampling on the rights of citizens.

The ATF's image suffered mightily in the aftermath of its 1993 raid and subsequent shootout at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, during which four agents and six Davidians were killed. It sustained another public-relations blow after it was revealed that ATF agents helped organize a whites-only `Good O' Boys Roundup' in the Tennessee hills.

Hearings of the Waco matter begin tomorrow in the House. A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the racist trappings of the roundup is scheduled for Friday.

One Senate staffer yesterday said there was `some real interest' in the ATF's acquisition of the aircraft, and that questions `probably will be asked very soon of the agency' about the specifics of their use and locations where they have been assigned.

According to federal law enforcement sources and others, including two airline pilots who have seen and photographed the ATF planes, two of the combat-capable aircraft--known as `Broncos'--have been routed to Shawnee, Okla., where they were painted dark blue over the past month at an aircraft maintenance firm known as Business Jet Designs Inc.

Michael Pruitt, foreman at Business Jet Designs, confirmed yesterday that two of the ATF aircraft had been painted at the Shawnee site and that at least one more of the OV-10Ds `was on the way.' Mr. Pruitt said the aircraft were painted dark blue with red and white trim. The sources said the paint jobs cost the ATF about $20,000 each.

The firm's owner, Johnny Patterson, told associates last month he expected to be painting at least 12 of the ATF aircraft but was unsure whether he could move all of them fast enough through his shop. Mr. Patterson was out of town yesterday and not available for comment.

According to the sources, the ATF's OV-10Ds, recently were overhauled under the government's Service Life Extension Program and were equipped with a state-of-the-art forward-looking infrared system that allows the pilot to locate and identify targets at nights--similar to the tracking system used on the Apache advanced attack helicopter.

Designed by Rockwell International, the OV-10D originally was outfitted with two 7.62mm M-60C machine guns, each with 500 rounds of ammunition. It also was modified to carry one Sidewinder missile under each wing, Snakeye bombs, fire bombs, rocket packages and cluster bombs.

The OV-10D can carry a 20mm gun turret with 1,500 rounds of ammunition.

During the Vietnam War, two OV-10Ds were used for a variety of missions during a six-week period and flew more than 200 missions in which they were credited with killing 300 enemy troops and saving beleaguered outposts from being overrun by the communists.

[Page: S10189]
 
Now for an example of DoD department level policy on arrest, read AR 190-56 (Army Civilian Police Program) It specifically prohibits Army civilian police from arresting civilians.

That is the Army. There are two other branches of service. Again, it still happens. The person will be "detained" and then transferred to the civilian police as soon as practical. I would say civilians get "arrested" on most posts on average several times a week. Mostly for drunk driving and similar offenses.



The OV-10 was obsolete when it was acquired by the ATF. It was obsolete in Vietnam. Regardless the ATF does not need a fleet of planes to enforce tax code. Maybe in 1925, not 1995.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top