The continuing militarization of police

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see a big problem when the cops come into a function that is populated by teens and early adults wearing camo at night, armed to the teeth, and acting like a certain group we all disdainf from a few decades ago.
Click to expand...
Jimpeel, I couldn't view the video, but if the write-up is on par with the events, it certainly was overuse of force. Couldn't agree more.
The MP-5 that is on the right has a 3 modes of fire, single, burst, auto. As was said, probably an offier from a tactical unit, or former member. However, just because they have a weapon capable of firing auto, doesn't mean they use it. Again, the same argument you hear in the papers, " If we let the average citizen have a .50 rifle, planes will start coming down." Sounds the same.
Sumabich, who said anythng about martial law, and "do as your told." I thought the discussion was about LE equipment, etc? WTFO!
 
Is it a good procurement decision for police departments to buy full-auto? IMO, only if they're cheaper than equivalent semi-auto weapons.

Who here can cite me the article in which the term "police militarization" was introduced, and the author's name and academic affiliation? Who has actually read it?
Click to expand...
Not me. Should I care? If so, please tell me where it did appear, so that I might read it. No matter who said it, how does that affect whether the police are increasingly militarized? Who cares if the originator of the idea is an idiot?

Unfortuantely, the BGs use of rifles, body armor and the like has CAUSED many departments and agencies to issue this gear to, ususally, tactical units. And it is normally these tactical units that will have to deal with those well armed and armored BGs.
Click to expand...
Well armed and armored BGs... like ravers? Maybe there were some handguns, and maybe there were some drugs, but how many hardened criminals do you really expect to find dancing in a field at 2330?
 
I hope this thread can remain civil since with the events that unfolded in NO this should be of concern to every American. I don't need a tinfoil hat to see that the actions in NO were unconstitutional or that they set a dangerous precedent. I personally don’t care where it started I am only concerned that it is continuing. We have a shoot out in LA that is played over and over in the media “I frankly am tired of seeing it” The average Joe thinks that it is a common occurrence and LE try to get you to believe “ We are out gunned, assault weapons, high capacity, armor piercing, blah, blah, blah. When in reality the shootout in LA was an aberration. I would be more than comfortable facing that scum with my AR15 and I bet I can hit a head at 35 yards. That being said couple this with the patriot act, moves to remove the Posse Comitatus and the abuses currently in the media involving shoots, use of tasers and cover ups I see a recipe for disaster. I trust the Government as far as I can pitch it.

Keep it civil guys
 
WOW... Major anti Law Enforcement mentality here... Are we forgetting that these men and women get dressed every day and put themselves between us and the human waste out there?... Are we forgetting that they get paid squat for it, constantly told they handled things wrong, spit on, attacked, killed, cursed, and on and on... Sounds like some would prefer the "Wild West" with good and bad guys squaring off in the streets.

Too militarized?... Personally I think the time for the "pretty" uniforms has passed. Put Beat cops in BDU s , let them be comfy and ready to roll. And I don't remember who suggested it, but it is true, late teenage ravers are peaceful non drug/alcohol users that respect authority and sing koombayah (forgive the spelling, and yes...major sarcasm intended).

Music, video games, gang mentality and many other avenues are promoting anti police/ anti peace.... shoot em, kill em , rob em, etc.... HEY! I have a great idea...why don't we do something different for a change... AND MAKE THE LIVES OF OUR LEO, AND THEIR JOBS EASIER FOR A CHANGE.

And on a side note... sumabich... you went from opinionated to fruit cake in one statement... seems to me most of the time I've heard someone tell an LEO they were gonna kick their freakin whatever, it was coming from a punk that just got slammed, cuffed and stuffed... time to start over is right... after being Billy Bubba's sumabich.
 
I think TFL needs to come up with a chest-thumpin' smilie, since there's an awful lot of it going on here. :p Come to my house, I got's me a belt-fed .45-70 that has "Sic semper tyrannus!" written on each bullet!!!!!! Da#n skippy ...
 
Crosshair

The two other sites I referenced are simply reiterations of the same thing in various formats. They are not worth spending the time on so if you are downloading them you should stop.
 
As an adjective, "military" is a descriptive property of things related to soldiers and warfare. It also refers to such context dependent terms such as military reserves which may indicate an actual unit deployable on command or the general sense, of a Nation States reserve troops available to or eligible for duty in its armed forces.

In formal British English, "military" as an adjective refers more particularly to matters relating to an army (land forces), as opposed to the naval and air force matters of the other two services.

In American English, "military" as an adjective is more widely used for regulations pertaining to and between all the armed forces like military procurement, military transport, military justice, military strength and military force.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military

It seems to me that in order for the police to be 'militarized' their deployment would have to fall under the control of the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces ie the President of the United States.

When local police fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government we have Militarization of the Police which undermines that which the Constitution outlines and stands for both practically and ideologically. How many local law enforcement officers here have attended Federal training programs, or their departments are subject to Federal guidelines and standards, or may actually fall directly or indirectly under the command of the President, for example FEMA commanding police forces from several jurisdications in New Orleans?

Here in Denver I have on several occasions seen police cars marked 'Federal Police - Department of Homeland Security'. I assume (possible incorrectly) that these 'Federal Police' are under either direct or indirect orders from the President via the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. Again a Federal Police Force goes against the very fabric of the US Constitution and what this Republic of States is supposed to stand for.

In summary I equate 'Militarization of the Police' with 'Federalization of the Police' strictly from a chain-of-command and jurisdiction perspective.
 
"We" don't dislike LE officers - just Police State tactics

WOW... Major anti Law Enforcement mentality here...
Click to expand...
No, Doc - it's not that "we" are anti-LE. In fact, with the way some (not all) police officers are conducting themselves these days, you could make a case for saying that LE has an anti-citizen/anti-Bill of Rights mentality.

Not so? Then how do you explain/justify LE in New Orleans unlawfully disarming law-abiding citizens - the citizens they are supposed to "protect and serve?" The people sitting in the remains of their homes with shotguns across their laps were not the ones out shooting at police, rescue & firefighters.

I would hazard a guess that 100% of the homeowners who were forcibly disarmed would have put a bullet in any thug they would have seen shooting at police/firefighters/rescue.

BTW, I see that the political officers have removed one of my earlier posts...
 
"I have on several occasions seen police cars marked 'Federal Police - Department of Homeland Security'."

Those are'nt the President's Praetorian Guard - those are Federal Protective Service officers, whose main job is physical security at fed buildings, for all practical purposes they are security guards and not the vanguard of a nefarious scheme to subjugate the masses.

If anyone is familiar with the concepts of Peel, Wilson, COPS, TRIAD, POP you'll quickly conclude that the police are far less "militarized" today than they were in the past. Y'all seem hungup on BDUs and guns which have nothing to do with "militarization"
 
"The Government" vs. the people

While hideously long-winded (it's an academic thing), the paper which molonlabe presents a link to (above) is worth reading. Here is a brief excerpt from it:


ABSTRACT
Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles.
Click to expand...

And...

CONCLUSION
The United States of America was founded without professional police. Its earliest traditions and founding documents evidenced no contemplation that the power of the state would be implemented by omnipresent police forces. On the contrary, America's constitutional Framers expressed hostility and contempt for the standing armies of the late eighteenth century, which functioned as law enforcement units in American cities. The advent of modern policing has greatly altered the balance of power between the citizen and the state in a way that would have been seen as constitutionally invalid by the Framers. The implications of this altered balance of power are far-reaching, and should invite consideration by judges and legislators who concern themselves with constitutional questions.
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, I'm left wondering why legislators feel the need for layer upon layer upon layer of police entities in our society while slowly but relentlessly stripping We The People of our right to arms.

The only answer I can come up with is this: Legislators want a helpless "citizenry" with an omnipotent agency (police entities) at their disposal with which they can force their will upon the helpless "citizens" - in other words, the legisltors seek autocratic rule with zero accountability.

If this is not unamerican, unconstitutional, unlawful and immoral, then nothing is.
 
History doesnt bear this out. George Washington implemented what can be considered the first LE agency in the US, a watchman corp that policed what became the District of Columbia, the agency evolving into what is today known as the US Park Police. The Revenue Cutter Service was founded in the l700s and evolved into the US Customs Service. We have never had a period in which there wasnt some form of LE, even if it was just a village constable.
 
_icon_flamethrower2.gif
cop.gif

_icon_flamethrower2.gif
cop.gif

_icon_flamethrower2.gif
cop.gif
 
Molonlabe, I read that thesis you posted. I started writing down points that were so wrong, one sided and FOS, that now the list is too long to type, and far too long to provide countering references. You have a good eye for legal and political debate, but that thesis should not be one of them. Comparing King George's standing army to today's police forces. Well, I wish that had been earlier on in the writing, It would've saved me a lot of time.
 
If by the term "militarization" one simply means the employment of more and heavier weaponry, then the answer to "Why is Law Enforcement becoming more 'militarized'?" is simple.... "because the badguys are."

I am an LEO at a small college. I am POST certified and carry all manner of tools on my bat belt, including a firearm, pepper spray and a baton. I have never had to use any of these, and more than likely never will. Our dept also trains and reviews tactics on active shooters on campus. Why do we do this? For the simple fact that we have to respond in the worst-case scenario, so we'd better be equipped to handle it. Why is it so hard to understand that you prepare and equip for the worst-case scenario? Yes, the shootout in LA was rare, but it did happen, and now the PD has the weapons necessary to handle that type of situation again. They weren't prepared at the time. See also Columbine or any other situation in which LE was not at all prepared with the proper training or equipment. LE, just like any CCW holder, tries to anticipate future events and situations and tries to train ahead of time, but, like Joe CCW, the crystal ball malfunctioned a while ago.

I have not had to use anything in my "arsenal" for any reason, but I do carry them with me at all times in the event that the worst happens. For a forum that is incredibly supportive of being prepared, I am surprised at the number of people that don't afford that luxury to LEOs. (oh, and before some members start, this article by the OP is an example of ridiculous overkill on the part of the LEO, simply stupid)
 
Well armed and armored BGs... like ravers? Maybe there were some handguns, and maybe there were some drugs, but how many hardened criminals do you really expect to find dancing in a field at 2330?
Click to expand...
Tyme, did you read all of my posts? You'll see that I am in agreement with the over-use-of-force issue, as written by the article. Again, it comes down to attitudes and policies (I include judgement into attitude, but I'll' throw it out there as one of the 3).
It is really easy to jump to conclusions on all of LE activities based on one, asinine department's operation. Much the same way that gun-grabbers use one, asinine gun owner's killing spree to make more ludicris laws to take away our weapons. Let's not fall into the same gutter that is occupied by the gun-grabbers, shall we?
 
It may have been overkill, or it may not. We have one side of the story, and I would venture that there is a second. We dont know what intel the cops had, or what their ultimate objective was. People are awfully quick to pass judgement on extremely limited info without any concern for the rest of the story, but i suppose waiting for facts would take all the fun out of forums, plus be a lot more boring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top