The continuing militarization of the police starting to gain press attention

[teeroux]

My term for military field laptops. You have seen them, I'm sure.

Companies just make rugged laptops and military and police just buy them cause they suit their need.

You should have just gone ahead and called them Assault Laptops.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

The problem here is that police officers are paid to keep US safe, not to keep themselves safe. They are paid to enforce laws, not to make up laws or to violate citizens' rights in the holy name of "I just want to go home at the end of my shift."

I think this opinion is an insult to those who have served in any branch of the military.

I don't think so, and I'm a Vietnam veteran. I think it's 100 percent true. Too many police today think of themselves as shock troops rather than as peace officers. Other posters have already commented on the proliferation of no-knock, dynamic entry warrant "services." That's a perfect example, because a majority of them do not need to be smash-and-grab entries. The intent of a warrant is that a court gives the police permission to enter. Absent some compelling reason to smash down the door at oh-dark-thirty and hogtie the occupants in their beds before they can wake up and react, what ever happened to the concept of knocking on the door and allowing the occupant to read the warrant and say either, "Okay, you can come in" ... OR "Well, this is a pretty piece of paper, but it says here 123 SOUTH Main street, and we're standing at 123 NORTH Main Street."

Every year there are numerous incidents of law-abiding people being detained, shot, and even killed in the course of dynamic entry warrant "servives" at wrong addresses. That, alone, is reason to be calling a halt to the use of such tactics.

Another aspect is that the failure of police to act decisively at the Texas Tower...

Were any of you alive when the Texas tower incident went down? I was. I wasn't there, but I remember it. What ... exactly ... could the police have done more "decisively" to end the incident faster? The tower was the tallest structure for miles in any direction. Whitman, to use a military term, "held the high ground." Whether those on the ground providing suppressive fire were cops, civilians, or military doesn't make any difference. Whitman was in a position that made it almost impossible to hit him. Fire from below was for suppression only, not for effect, and it worked. More cops and fewer private citizens would not have changed the dynamic at all.

It might have been possible to put a sniper up in a helicopter -- but the helicopter would have been vulnerable to sniping by Whitman, too. So what else could they have done? Called in a Huey and told the door gunner to cut loose with the Ma Deuce?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

I few months back I did a citizens' police academy in a nearby town. They have one of these surplus HumVees. It sits parked in a tin warehouse approximately 360 days out of the year. It gets used so infrequently that they have the batteries hooked up to charger maintainers.

Meanwhile, the department has a half dozen or more Explorers that are used every day for routine patrol. Especially now that Ford has dropped the Crown Vic, in this corner of the world more and more local PDs are replacing worn-out Crown Vics with 4WD Explorers as their standard patrol vehicles.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I think some posters in this thread may not understand that there are already checks in place on warrant service. I agree that nightcap no-knock warrants are extremely dangerous and pose an increased risk to innocent people, but in order to get one, you have to justify the need in the warrant application to a judge. Obviously this does not stop all the problems that can happen with nightcap and no-knock warrants, but I just want it to be clear that it isn't like police officers can just decide that they're going to serve a no-knock on their own initiative (absent legally established exigent circumstances).

The problems with nightcaps and no-knocks are those of human error and improper application of established legal process or failure to have effective best-practice policies in place, not a sign that police should never be allowed to use them.

 

[csmsss]

It might have been possible to put a sniper up in a helicopter -- but the helicopter would have been vulnerable to sniping by Whitman, too. So what else could they have done? Called in a Huey and told the door gunner to cut loose with the Ma Deuce?

Not to mention that in 1966 helicopters were far from being as ubiquitous as they are today. I'll bet there were very, very few available for law enforcement use.

And I for one wouldn't want to be the guy in a bouncing, unstable helicopter trying to take Charles Whitman, an excellent shot in a position of excellent cover who likely would have an easier shot at me than I would at him.

 

[Conn. Trooper]

I few months back I did a citizens' police academy in a nearby town. They have one of these surplus HumVees. It sits parked in a tin warehouse approximately 360 days out of the year. It gets used so infrequently that they have the batteries hooked up to charger maintainers.

Meanwhile, the department has a half dozen or more Explorers that are used every day for routine patrol. Especially now that Ford has dropped the Crown Vic, in this corner of the world more and more local PDs are replacing worn-out Crown Vics with 4WD Explorers as their standard patrol vehicles.

Never mind, PM sent.

 

[MikeGoob]

Will they ever just 'tone it down' on their own? If they have budget to buy all the toys, eventually they HAVE to use them...

 

[KyJim]

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?

You got that from my suggestion that we look at it from the point of an officer? According to you then, everything up to killing someone is not over aggressive, just normal police work.

Where's my truncheon? I've got some bones to break now that I know that's not being over-aggressive.

The problem here is that police officers are paid to keep US safe, not to keep themselves safe. They are paid to enforce laws, not to make up laws or to violate citizens' rights in the holy name of "I just want to go home at the end of my shift."

I'm not talking about breaking laws or placing someone else at risk.I'm talking about the officer who makes a traffic stop and has his hand near his gun as he approaches. I'm talking about an officer who, when handcuffing someone he's known for years, still handcuffs they guy's hands behind his back. A few years ago in my state, a rural sheriff arrested someone he had known for years and handcuffed his hands in front. Even sitting in the back seat, the guy somehow got the sheriff's gun and shot and killed him.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm not talking about breaking laws or placing someone else at risk.I'm talking about the officer who makes a traffic stop and has his hand near his gun as he approaches. I'm talking about an officer who, when handcuffing someone he's known for years, still handcuffs they guy's hands behind his back. A few years ago in my state, a rural sheriff arrested someone he had known for years and handcuffed his hands in front. Even sitting in the back seat, the guy somehow got the sheriff's gun and shot and killed him.

Neither of those examples even approaches militarization or over-aggressiveness, and I think you're really smart enough to know that.

 

[Psychedelic Bang]

The martial law in Boston after the marathon bombing was incredibly strange.

I see the world like this: (I am sure many will disagree)

I haven't been on the forums in years, I stumbled on this thread researching an opinion piece, that I am in the process of writing, that argues for the legalization of all drugs. So, "go figure."

It is plain sight obvious that much of this police arms race since 2001 has been in response to, "the war on terror." What may not be so obvious is that much of the police arms race leading up to 2001 has been in response to, "the war on drugs."

We should end both.

 

[KyJim]

Neither of those examples even approaches militarization or over-aggressiveness, and I think you're really smart enough to know that.

Maybe, but I also know that understanding why someone is over-aggressive is not the same thing as condoning it and certainly not the same thing as killing someone (not your post, I know).

 

[FireForged]

If the police are not controlled by, answer to or act under the auspices of the US Military.. it really isn't militarization. Police forces have always been quasi-military organizations but that doesn't make them military.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Police forces have always been quasi-military organizations but that doesn't make them military.

I VERY much disagree.

I'm "only" 70 years old, and I remember all three cops from the town where I grew up. The two patrol officers were addressed by first name -- only. The chief was treated with the respect due his office -- we put "Chief" in front of his first name when addressing him.

I won't go into all the various incidents in which all three of them displayed a very un-military-like approach to policing. There are far too many. Just one example may suffice: When I was a junior (IIRC) in high school, I got whacked in the eye in gym class and had to wear a patch for a couple of weeks. I had my driver's license and normally drove myself to school, but depth perception isn't so great with only one functional eye, so during those two weeks my parents wouldn't allow me to drive. My father worked, so my mother drove me and my younger brother to school and picked us up.

Came the day I had to go to the eye doctor for a progress check. Folks still declined to allow me to drive (I still had the patch), but scheduling made it impossible for my parents to pick me up at the doc's. My father dropped me off on his way to work, but we had a problem getting me back to town from the "big city."

I don't remember (maybe I never knew) how the police chief got wind of the problem, but he volunteered that he had to be in court that morning, so if I didn't mind waiting at the doc's office, he (the chief) would pick me up and deliver me to the high school. So that's what happened.

I'm pretty certain that sort of thing would not happen today in any city or town in the state where I grew up. There are probably some places in middle America where such a Sheriff Andy approach might be encountered ... but not many. Today they'd hope I might try to drive with the eye patch so they could nab me for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. "Just to teach 'em a lesson," of course.

 

[jimpeel]

Okay. Being the thread parent on this I have sat back long enough to the point that I will be nominated for troll status if I don't respond to what has been stated throughout this thread.

It seems that most of the respondents are in agreement that the militarization is out of control.

On armored vehicles, one need only go to youtube and search on "swat armored vehicle" to see video after video of these things in action or being lauded as the end-all, be-all for the protection of the populace.

So let me respond to some of those who have posted things with which I either agree or disagree.

I would also think back to the 20's and 30's when cops carried Thompsons and BAR's.

While what you say is quite true, those firearms were available to everyone over the counter or through the mail. The police having them was simply normal for the time.

I do think, as well, that the influx of surplus military equipment encourages this mindset: if you have the toys, you're going to want to play with them.

True of all things new and exciting. The problem with these new and exciting things is that they are being employed against the citizenry. At what point does this start to become a posse comitatus question?

People were forcibly removed from their homes so they could be searched during the door to door crap, clear constitutional violations being flatly ignored by the media, government and most of the populace.

This is the epitome of safety over liberty. We all know the Benjamin Franklin quote so there is no reason to repeat it here.

I think it's no coincidence that the backlash against this trend is coming at the same time as a major shift in public opinion against other post-9/11 excesses such as the behavior of the NSA, the use of drones against countries with which the US is nominally at peace, etc.

BINGO! Has anyone here spoken to anyone who watched the progression in Germany pre WWII? I actually have a customer who was at one of the speeches that Hitler gave and he says "I knew then he was full of s---." The problem is that he says he is seeing it again.

Don't equate the federal government with the 'police'.

Clinton called for a federal police force and so has Obama. That line could become blurred very quickly. Note:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
-- Barack Obama

I think this opinion is an insult to those who have served in any branch of the military.

The problem is that there are so many examples of the shoot first ask later mentality. Think back to the police who shot up two vehicles because they thought they were Christopher Dorner. Those weren't warning shots. The occupants were not even ordered from their vehicles before the police opened fire upon them.

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.

I believe that many people are opposed to the elevation of police to near deity status. Kill a cop, go to the gas chamber. Kill my wife, you'll be out in less than ten years. Why is his life more sacrosanct than hers?

The problem here is that police officers are paid to keep US safe, not to keep themselves safe. They are paid to enforce laws, not to make up laws or to violate citizens' rights in the holy name of "I just want to go home at the end of my shift."

I have no problem with officers wanting to remain safe. The problem I have is the part about making up violations. The latest is when people try filming the police in action they arrest them for "obstruction of justice" or "obstructing an officer in the performance of their duties". Numerous courts have sided with the videographers that there is no obstruction yet this keeps being used as a foil to their being filmed. The newest is "The camera/phone might be a gun." What is they are trying to hide?

It is plain sight obvious that much of this police arms race since 2001 has been in response to, "the war on terror." What may not be so obvious is that much of the police arms race leading up to 2001 has been in response to, "the war on drugs."

DING, DING, DING ...We have a winner!

This goes back to the point made earlier where the anti-firearms propaganda screamed "The police are outgunned!" That was a war on drugs mantra. It is now used as a mantra for the war on terror.

Through all of this, let us remember one thing clearly and that is Sir Robert Peel's "Peelian Principles":

“The Peelian Principles”

These nine basic principles are often referred to as “The Peelian Principles.” Upon close examination of each of the Peelian principles, not only are direct connections to policing in today's world apparent, but often the nine principles are cited as the basic foundation for current law enforcement organizations and community policing throughout the world.

Many law enforcement agencies currently quote the Peelian Principles on their community websites as their own principles.


Sir Robert Peel 1788 - 1850
“The Founder of Modern Policing”

Peelian Principle 1 - “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”

Peelian Principle 2 - “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”

Peelian Principle 3 - “Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.”

Peelian Principle 4 - “The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”

Peelian Principle 5 - “Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”

Peelian Principle 6 - “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”

Peelian Principle 7 - “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Peelian Principle 8 - “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”

Peelian Principle 9 - “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”

 

[johnwilliamson062]

If the police are not controlled by, answer to or act under the auspices of the US Military.. it really isn't militarization.

I hope you realize the fallacy here. No one said they are being incorporated into the US military. What I think everyone on the "militarization" argument is saying is that local and state organizations are being converted into military organizations that remain more or less under local and state control. A local judge signs the local warrant to do a no-knock warrant on a local house full well knowing local LEOs will be charging in unannounced with more firepower and defensive equipment than most fire teams. Maybe more than a squad. My rural county doesn't need a ten man military organization at its disposal.
When the military raided residence in Mexico they wouldn't even try to enter. They would just surround the house and unload on it. Bullets would be going all over the neighborhood. We aren't close to there yet, but we are definitely headed in that direction. Flash bangs often cause permanent injuries and have caused some deaths. Police obviously have no problem using them without confirming the inhabitants identity or giving them a chance to surrender. What happens when they throw one of these flash bangs on top of a sleeping child? What about next to a child who picks it up? There is a problem in that.

I have discussed no knock warrants with my local Sheriff. He agrees there is a serious problem in their over use and said they do less than five a year. One the year I talked to him. Almost exclusively drug raids and they use surveillance on the property before hand to confirm inhabitants. Basing one of these off of info from a CI without doing any legwork is incredibly lazy and unprofessional.

Luckily, it seems Obama is finally going to let some steam out of the war on drugs with sentencing revisions. I am hoping that curbs a great deal of this, but as things get tighter I know local LEA are going to be searching for money. Confiscated drug money is about as easy as it gets.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I have no problem with officers wanting to remain safe.

I have no problem with police officers wanting to remain safe. Anyone who doesn't want to be safe is probably insane. But ... police officers enter a profession that, by definition, will have occasions when they (the officers) are NOT safe. It's when they choose to trade the safety of those they are sworn "to serve and protect" in order to preserve their own safety that I have a problem.

"I just want to go home at the end of my shift" is not a valid excuse for abuses of authority or for excessive use of force.

 

[Wyoredman]

^
...and, a police officer can find another line of work ANYTIME the job becomes too dangerous for him/her! There are choices we all make in life, career being one of the most important. Choosing to become a law man is a noble choice, but it is still a choice. Too use that choice as an excuse for excessive force doesn't hold water with me. Some may have a different opinion, that is fine.

It really bothers me when police call the citizens they work for "civilians", implying that cops are not also "civilians". The military is the military, the rest of us are "civilians".

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Statistically speaking, police are nowhere near the top for dangerous jobs. They are actually around the middle.

 

[seeker_two]

http://www.policeproducts.com/protech-delta-boltless-helmet-pr-864.html

Now, why would a police department need this....unless they already owned a M249? And why would a police department need a belt-fed machine gun in the first place?....

 

[motorhead0922]

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
-- Barack Obama

Hmmm. Seems to me that would be the very militia mentioned in 2A, whose rights shall not be infringed. Thus completely eliminating the need for the police to have Humvees, etc.