The continuing militarization of the police starting to gain press attention

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dragline45 said:
I did notice the soldier in the Humvee pointing his rifle at the homeowner snapping the photo. Although in hindsight, could you blame him? Just the night before an all out firefight ensued that included the use of IED's.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a valid reason to aim a loaded firearm at a civilian simply because he or she lives in the general area where the attack occurred. If they were aiming at any civilian taking pictures of them then I am greatly concerned...
 
I somewhat agree with you, but have you tried looking into a window of someones home while standing outside, especially on the second story. You don't have a clear sight picture, and for all they knew that could have been a rifle in their hands.
 
Dragline45--

The biggest case of illegal searches I can recall. I'm betting nobody files suit about this, though.
 
Dragline45 said:
I somewhat agree with you, but have you tried looking into a window of someones home while standing outside, especially on the second story. You don't have a clear sight picture, and for all they knew that could have been a rifle in their hands.
Click to expand...

Can I aim at another civilian simply because he may have a gun that I can't see and my house was robbed the day before?
 
The biggest case of illegal searches I can recall. I'm betting nobody files suit about this, though.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of a single case. I agree that it was a huge over reach of power, and I would have been pretty PO'd if it had happened to me. My house was very close to where the firefight happened too so there was a very good chance my home could have been searched. If more people in my state would arm themselves the chance and fear of being taken hostage in your own home would have been much smaller. Watertown is very anti-gun and is almost impossible to obtain a concealed carry license as Mass. is a may issue state. My address is listed under my parents home because their town will issue concealed carry licenses.

Can I aim at another civilian simply because he may have a gun that I can't see and my house was robbed the day before?
Click to expand...

No but you are not military, nor would you be in pursuit of a terrorist suspect. Like I said, I can see where you are coming from, but if you were in that situation I am betting you would do the same, at least I know I would.
 
No but you are not military, nor would you be in pursuit of a terrorist suspect. Like I said, I can see where you are coming from, but if you were in that situation I am betting you would do the same, at least I know I would.
Click to expand...
A) There shouldn't be military patrolling domestic cities.
B) It was two underage boy hoodlums with too much time, some hate, and household appliances. By this logic if twenty 19yo's around the country blew up pressure cookers in 20 cities, the whole country should be militarized.
That is a very saddening and strong slippery slope you are advocating
C) Fear and tension is entirely irrelevant to ones conduct. More importantly people being placed in a position of authority does not arbitrarily remove the need to follow the 4 Rules. Our police should practice the same conduct and muzzle discipline as any law abiding citizen does.
 
When in Mexico, in the middle of the drug war, in the most dangerous city in the world according to EIU, with much more extensive firefights on a near daily basis, I never had a LEO muzzle me so carelessly. In fact, even at military checkpoints where everything was dumped out on the road I never had a marine muzzle me so carelessly. I never saw them muzzle anyone else so carelessly either.

In this case the officer obviously has extensive support. Half his body is in an armored vehicle. The other half is covered in armor. The possibility of him suddenly finding himself outgunned in some sort of ambush is minimal. There it wasn't just possible, but for many was a reality.
So, yes, I guess I do feel pretty comfortable blaming him.
He might be lucky his trigger finger isn't clearly visible. Hopefully not though.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
You mean like when a Republican President, Bush, pushed for and gets something like the Department of Homeland Security? How about Reagan's push to upgrade policing with military materials and training for the War on Drugs? You can't call out Democratic presidents and poison the well without revealing the fact that it isn't just a Democrat issue. Both sides have contributed to this and it doesn't matter if you think one has been worse than the other.
Click to expand...

I never stated the political party of those I mentioned -- you did. It is not the political party that counts. What I posted were the names of two presidents -- regardless of political stripe -- who actively called for a national police force.

Clinton and Obama are the only two presidents which have made the call for a national police force.

The Department of Homeland Security -- a department that should never have come into existence -- is not a national police force any more than the FBI is a national police force.

Please don't attribute political motive to my posts.
 
Press better write what they can while they can. A certain Senator that recently proposed an "assault weapons" ban, has proposed limiting freedom of the press. The fact that this is something she is comfortable stating out in the open and going on record with is very disturbing in itself.

:( Sad days ahead. The press may not be printing much of anything on this matter if Feinstien gets her way.
 
Citizens are comfortable with this escalation/transformation because mainstream media has instilled a fear in non-gun owners minds of a continuing increase in firepower and use of military style assault weapons by criminals. Media has alarmed the public to such an extent that police agencies hardly need to justify their use of such equipment.
 
ress better write what they can while they can. A certain Senator that recently proposed an "assault weapons" ban, has proposed limiting freedom of the press. The fact that this is something she is comfortable stating out in the open and going on record with is very disturbing in itself.
Click to expand...

Link please?
 
No but you are not military, nor would you be in pursuit of a terrorist suspect. Like I said, I can see where you are coming from, but if you were in that situation I am betting you would do the same, at least I know I would.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that military have special privileges in this country? Or that pursuit of a terrorist suspect allows them to violate the law and the Constitution?

If you'd do the same then you must certainly prefer safety and security over liberty. We all know what Franklin said about that. I don't understand why you would own a gun or participate in a liberty oriented forum.

There was no need for a military force to chase one bad guy. Standard police work would have sufficed. This kid had no where to run and would have been in contact with friends or family within hours.

Better yet, would be for the citizens in the very home and source of American liberty to have exercised their constitutional rights to self protection and been able to defend their own homes against this criminal intruder or any criminal intruder.
 
So, according to Chief Shults, the local cops aren't militarizing, they are just using "protective gear"?

Obtaining and using protective gear and equipment prevents death and injury to police officers and citizens. Isn’t it reasonable that we have more guns and bullets than the criminals who confront us?
Click to expand...

And, Chief Shults goes on to say -
Our current, locally based police service must have the tools needed to be effective to prevent the true militarization by politicians catering to public fear. To preserve the civilian/military split, it is necessary that civilian law enforcement agencies not fail in their mission to suppress and respond to crime.
Click to expand...

In other words, "Thank us [cops] for becoming military units, because some politician might sick the real military on you!"

To which I answer, Police Chiefs ARE politicians - doing just that!
 
If police were only getting increased defensive capability I don't think it would be a problem. Yes, 100 years ago some police were carrying full auto weapons, but most were carrying 6 shot revolvers. Even 20 years ago most police had shotguns in their cruisers AND most seemed to think it was just for looks. Now most departments have a full auto AR for each full time officer. Quite a few have heavier weaponry than that. Tasers are used in cases where an officer would not be justified using physical force as if there is no danger.

I seriously doubt the redcoats were as wanton with their use of force as several departments in the US.
 
Thanks for the link MLeake. I remember the story. Very scary stuff.

Now most departments have a full auto AR for each full time officer.
Click to expand...

No police department has any business with full auto weapons. If they're after a terrorist, are they going to sweep the crowd to make sure they get him?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top