The continuing militarization of the police starting to gain press attention

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Conn. Trooper,

Of course I read those articles. I live here. My daughter is sixth generation from this county.

I never claimed the HMV was armored! I just question the need, our streets are all paved! City cops don't travel the boonies!

I did say it was MY TERM for the computers.

Also, the department received "scopes". Wonder what they need those for? Sniper rifles?

My point being, Why does the little old town of Lander need all this "stuff" from the army?

ETA: Mr. Trooper, No disrespect meant to any who chose law enforcement as a career, the choice is most noble! I just simply find the idea of having small military type unit in the civilian police force very disturbing.

I assume you, yourself, are a state trooper. I thank you for the service to your community. I bet even you have seen the shift from policing by the local beat cop that knew the folks.

Did you see the pictures of the cops in full battle dress? Cordon off streets? Really? Militarization!
 
Last edited:
Mr. Conn. Trooper,

Of course I read those articles. I live here. My daughter is sixth generation from this county.

I never claimed the HMV was armored! I just question the need, our streets are all paved! City cops don't travel the boonies!

I did say it was MY TERM for the computers.

Also, the department received "scopes". Wonder what they need those for? Sniper rifles?

My point being, Why does the little old town of Lander need all this "stuff" from the army?

Did you see the pictures of the cops in full battle dress? Cordon off streets? Really? Militarization!

The Humvee is supposedly being used to pull a trailer. Does it snow in Lander, Wyoming? Humvees go well in the snow. And go well off road. It is not armored, not armed. Its a 4x4 diesel truck, nothing more.

Scoped rifles equal a sniper. Really? I know lots of 80 year old "snipers" that go sniping deer in the fall.

I think you might need to take a step back and look at this realistically. If I was a small town chief or sheriff and the army was giving away scopes, a 4x4 truck, and MDT's, I would take it and use it. I just don't see that this equals militarizing the police.
 
I get somewhat what is being said here with this:
if you have the toys, you're going to want to play with them.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the same argument that people use against anyone that carries a gun? "If a person has a gun, they are more prone to use it." I don't agree with them on that, but it sounds similar to me.
 
Been thinking (possibly dangerous?) and thought I would share this...I remember back in the early part of the 90's when I first got involved with emergency services, that most of the specialized stuff available then like, helicopters, armored vehicles, mobile command centers, etc, were state owned then, instead of having some owned at the individual local agency level. Availability of the these units were restricted more due to politics it seemed, then anything else. Now with a lot of grants that started coming in the late 90's through the 2000's it seems many agencies are purchasing these vehicles for their own use, instead of depending on the state.

Now with FEMA and the state EM groups trying to force some level of interoperability tossed in to the mix, it gets to the point of who is actually supervising everything, and stuff goes overboard. Plus with all the different levels of management, there is more levels of politics to pander to/with.

I think there will always be people who want any government agency to do the current job with 1920's cost and equipment, or at least it seems that way from my viewpoint. I know times change, and with the change in risks (real or imagined) new equipment is added. I don't see a huge issue myself, just think its more a matter of perception. Its been already pointed out here that in years past LE had full auto firearms and a host of other items that would be considered "military" today. Its strange though when I read back through old news articles/magazines/etc there isn't the complaint of "militarization of the police" there is today.

Also the only military hmmv here was a demo unit that somehow wound out with a near by LE agency. I do know of a FD with a civilian H1 though for a brush truck. Yep, the m37's are gone here, with a few m715's left. I guess folks could complain over the military m1008/m1009's though that LE has locally, though I haven't heard it. Guess that cheap white paint job makes them less military.

ETA: I guess the repurpose of equipment bothers some people instead of trashing it and buying new. Something as simple as a vehicle...I have never heard people complain about the older m37's and m715's causing the LE to be 'militarized' but somehow the hmmv does cause that. Me? Heck, Id settle for a m715 with power brakes instead of a hmmv. Im not hard to please.
 
Last edited:
I don't have anything against police having hand-me-down military equipment like M-16s or the unarmored Humvee mentioned above. I also think it is a good idea to have police tactically trained (SWAT). My concern is the utilization of SWAT or other "tactical" methods when it is unnecessary to do so. We've had a couple of recent threads about this so I won't go into detail. However, I think we need to place ourselves in an officer's shoes -- I know I would rather err on the side of being over aggressive rather than being unsafe.
 
would rather err on the side of being over aggressive rather than being unsafe.
Click to expand...
The problem in your statement is that as the police aggression climbs citizen safety falls. There is a balance that must be kept and I think many departments seem to disregard that need.

I am much more worried about the expansion of no-knock warrants than HMMVs and a few M16s.
As I alluded to in my post I think many of these departments jump at "free" without considering the real added costs. I see Dayton PD driving their MRAV around quite frequently. I know what they paid for it to be converted and I can guess at its gas mileage. I am sure they have fabricated a dozen emergencies a month where they need the thing, but really they are just throwing tax payer money down the tube.

I think there may also be a difference between those veterans seekeing employment as civilian law enforcement officers now and in the past. It is my impression that most in the past were simply veterans looking for jobs. I was acquainted with several MPs who joined the military in order to be trained to be police officers. Their MP training was mixed with infantry training. Some were employed by the campus police force. I wasn't always sure they were able to separate their rolls as infantryman, MPs, and civilian law enforcement officers. I wouldn't be surprised if blurring the lines continues now that they have probably left the military. I haven't kept in touch with any of them to know for sure though.
 
Last edited:
This is more a matter of training than equipment.

Your local PD gets a HMMWV surplused from DOD? So what? You should be happy that they got it, since it means they're not using local tax dollars to buy the Ford Explorer or ATVs that they would have used for the same thing.

Obviously there are limits. I can even understand why a large agency would want surplus aircraft- I don't know about the ATF case the OP mentioned, but just because surplused spotter/light attack aircraft are acquired and said aircraft have weapons pylons doesn't mean they're going to be strafing gun owners in the streets. Or even ever be armed. Just that they had weapons mounts when they were acquired.

If there was any evidence that the ATF was planning on arming those aircraft, that would be totally different. But the Bronco is a long-loiter time light aircraft that was designed for aerial spotting and surveillance, so I can see Border Patrol or DNR or someone using them.

I admit that next to the IRS and TSA, ATF is the third to last agency I would trust with, well, anything, and that if they could find a way to misuse it, I'm sure it would happen.

The real issue is the overapplication of SWAT tactics. That is relatively rare, but it does happen and is indicative of the need for better oversight and command decision making in some departments, but not, I think, an indictment of law enforcement as a whole.
 
What is a battle computer?
Click to expand...
Computer.....Computer.....Machine that processes logic....ROBOTS!
therefore battle computer=terminators!

Apologies but I just don't see this "militarization" as being a bad thing.
The civilian police are increasingly being manned by ex-military who go to the gun as a first line of defense instead of the last. They use their deadly force as the first line of defense when they are equipped with less deadly equipment at their disposal.
Click to expand...
I think this opinion is an insult to those who have served in any branch of the military.
 
Another aspect is that the failure of police to act decisively at the Texas Tower...

It's almost never mentioned that scores of civilians returned fire on Charles Whitman using their privately owned rifles and pistols possibly preventing further bloodshed.

It seems with the media's help, law enforcement tends to look upon the armed citizen as a liability, not an asset.
 
There's an issue here that's perhaps being overlooked. When Uncle Sugar provides equipment to a police agency, it's not a gift. There are always conditions and requirements attached. Yet, we never really hear what these conditions and requirements are. What is it our local LE agencies are agreeing to that they never share with us? What obligations have they made that we will only learn when that day comes when the feebs come back to hold them to it?
 
A Sniper in the Tower: The Charles Whitman Murders by Gary M. Lavergne (Mar 1, 1997)

Makes it pretty clear that civilian fire suppressed Whitman.

Active Shooter Events and Response by John P. Blair, Terry Nichols, David Burns and John R. Curnutt (Jun 12, 2013)

Mentions it also but it doesn't have a big description of the incident.
 
The civilian police are increasingly being manned by ex-military who go to the gun as a first line of defense instead of the last. They use their deadly force as the first line of defense when they are equipped with less deadly equipment at their disposal. Remember when the Washington, DC police they shot a man in a wheelchair who wouldn't drop a knife which was taped to his hand making it impossible for him to drop it? C'est la vie.
Click to expand...

And we're supposed to believe that these shoot-first mentality cops are going to stand by the Constitution in case of a government gun grab. They're just like us. Except that Law Enforcement Officers are the armed enforcement branch of the government. That is their primary role - even ahead of revenue generation.
 
However, I think we need to place ourselves in an officer's shoes -- I know I would rather err on the side of being over aggressive rather than being unsafe.
Click to expand...

Really? The only way for a policeman to be safe is to kill other folks first? Because that's what over-aggressive means. Better a few innocents get killed than to harm a policeman?

There are those who believe that the police are an elite class of knight warriors but I'm not one of them. I don't think a cop should get shot at any more than anyone else should get shot at. But I don't think the rest of us should be any less safe or protected than cops.
 
Levant said:
And we're supposed to believe that these shoot-first mentality cops are going to stand by the Constitution in case of a government gun grab. They're just like us. Except that Law Enforcement Officers are the armed enforcement branch of the government. That is their primary role - even ahead of revenue generation.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't know the police officers that I do. Not a single police officer that I know would help to enforce a gun grab, they would all quit before being forced into that position. And in addition to that, there are plenty of higher ranking LEO's that took a stand against possible government action against our second amendment rights.
 
When asked why LPD needed a Humvee, Carey said it’s “one more step to become more responsive.” As local law enforcement is often the first line of defense, he feels it will help the department better fulfill that role. The Humvee in its ruggedness can traverse territory that other LPD vehicles cannot. This particular vehicle is not armored, though he said he’s trying to obtain another one that is.
Eventually, Carey said he’d like to convert a Humvee into a tactical ambulance to extract wounded individuals from tight situations.
Click to expand...

So this Humvee might not be armored but they are trying to get one that is - because... well, you know... all the shootouts that happen in Lander, Wyoming.

And the tactical ambulance... Again, all those shootouts and dangerous extractions that happen in Lander.

These are cops watching way too many movies.

The Humvee isn’t the only piece of gear LPD is getting through this program. Last week, LPD received weapons parts, pouches, containers, two laptops, three Nikon cameras with lenses (valued at $4,500 each) and an iPad. Coming this week are 12 rugged laptops (valued at $4,000 a piece), rifle scopes and and $8,000 computer server.
Carey said the cameras will be used in evidence collection and the iPad will be used by him in the office. The rugged laptops are heavy duty for field use.
Click to expand...

The mobile device, the iPad, will be used at the office. Then it's just a toy. They got a bunch of toys.

He called the paperwork process to get the gear difficult, though because everything is “free, free, free,” it’s worth it.
Click to expand...

Free, free, free. After all, it's only tax money. That didn't cost anyone anything. Free, free, free.

I am so disgusted it makes my stomach hurt.
 
Maybe you don't know the police officers that I do. Not a single police officer that I know would help to enforce a gun grab, they would all quit before being forced into that position. And in addition to that, there are plenty of higher ranking LEO's that took a stand against possible government action against our second amendment rights.
Click to expand...

I don't want to turn this into what might be labeled a cop-bashing thread so let me just say that yes, you are right. There are plenty like you describe. But there are plenty like I describe. You can google either side of the equation yourself if you want the specifics.
 
Levant said:
I don't want to turn this into what might be labeled a cop-bashing thread so let me just say that yes, you are right. There are plenty like you describe. But there are plenty like I describe. You can google either side of the equation yourself if you want the specifics.
Click to expand...

That is certainly fair enough. I guess I am just optimistic sometimes... But as always, prepare for the worst.
 
Your local PD gets a HMMWV surplused from DOD? So what? You should be happy that they got it, since it means they're not using local tax dollars to buy the Ford Explorer or ATVs that they would have used for the same thing.
Click to expand...

A point, but…..put fuel in that HMMWV for a year and you could probably buy a new ATV.

Does a city PD like Chicago need a HMMWV. Maybe. But the town nearest me, population 5800 has one. Why, I don’t know. Worse thing that happens here is an occasional DUI or a bar fight.
 
Just an idea, and I know most will disagree...

What do the anti-gun groups always state? The 'cops' are out gunned.

So what about the militarization of the police? If I were anti-gun it would be a huge wet dream. How? Lets get the gun owners against the cops then let the public (who aren't as involved as those on TFL) decide who should be out gunned. Most would err on the side of the police. So what happens then?

Due to the support of folks who dislike police, the police get restricted, and then there is a claim of "Oh, the police are outgunned" then the public is restricted, then there is a backlash of "oh but the police can have this" that's restricted then. Afterwards another cry of the police are out gunned, and more restrictions, etc.

Even the claim of males between "X" and "Y" age are considered the militia. Then we put an exception for police, and then people wonder why police, which are comprised generally of males age "X" to "Y" are restricted, so lets restrict others...

The more I debate this idea in my mind, the more it sounds like a wet dream for the anti-gunners. Why? They can grab tons of gun owners by saying"bad police" all the while tricking them in to more restrictions. Its straight from the anti-gunners play book. How? Divide and conquer.

It doesn't stop at just firearms. One could also make the same argument that people don't need a 1 ton pickup but instead need a 1/2 ton instead, or maybe a prius, cause if a huge SUV is bad for LE it must be bad for the public.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top