The continuing militarization of the police starting to gain press attention

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes I ask myself whom I fear more, the police or criminals? It shouldn't be that way!

“We are fortunate that our state has not been victimized from a mass casualty event from an international terrorism strike however on the domestic front, the threat is real and here. Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges. Outside of the officially organized groups, there are several homegrown clusters that are anti-government and pose problems for law enforcement agencies.” – From Concord, New Hampshire’s application to the DHS for an armored police vehicle.
Click to expand...
Source - http://benswann.com/police-chief-calls-free-state-project-members-domestic-terrorist/
 
Last edited:
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...
I very much dispute that all this military-type gear prevents deaths and injuries to citizens. It is this gear that the police use to carry out their no-knock, dynamic entry warrant "services." Their reason for wearing all that gear isn't to prevent injury to the occupants of the place they're breaking into, it's to prevent themselves from getting shot ... nothing more.\

If they want to prevent deaths and injuries to the citizens, they could stop these dynamic entry warrant "services" over non-life threatening searches, and just knock on the door like civilized peace officers.
 
We need to be careful about banning civilians (i.e. police officers) from being issued scary-looking equipment. That obviously works against us.

I think the problem is police using military tactics, not military-style equipment.
Click to expand...

I'll go along with that. How about we just ban the the police (i.e. the government) from buying expensive equipment that is just not needed and that nothing in the history of a town has ever indicated it was needed - whether they buy it with city dollars, county dollars, state dollars, or federal grant dollars.

But think about the times when the police - local, state, or federal, used military equipment and tactics against civilians. It's never worked out well. The MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, Waco, Kent State. Any others come to mind?

The way to use military equipment is the military tactics for which it was designed. To use it in non-military fashion would not work. I'm not talking about four-wheel drive trucks. I'm talking about armoured personal carriers and assault vehicles. They just don't work for protecting citizens and keeping peace. Their intimidation factor only works if you are willing to use them. Waco, MOVE, and Kent State all show how badly using them works out.
 
I have been advocating for 20 years that ALL government agencies (excluding the actual military) be subject to the same gun/weapon/equipment laws that the civilian population is coerced into obeying.

Instead, law enforcement and virtually any government agency is being exempt from any weapon restriction, leading us inexorably to a state where the government as a whole is armed in a far superior fashion than the citizenry that it derives it's power from.

The latest example is right here in CO, we the people are now limited to 15 round magazines, while the government gets whatever it wants. I am absolutely convinced that this trend is specifically designed for the hegemonic domination of the general populace.
 
Last edited:
iraiam said:
Instead, law enforcement and virtually any government agency is being exempt from any weapon restriction, leading us inexorably to a state where the government as a whole is armed in a far superior fashion than the citizenry that it derives it's power from.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.
 
Just ran across this story and thought I should share it.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...r-type-kitchen-knife-park-forest-police-taser
96 year old using a walker refuses medical attention. Police first tase him. When he fails to comply at that point they shoot him in the stomach with a bean bag round. What kind of idiot things you can shoot a 96 year old in the stomach with a bean bag round and not kill them?

I was in a situation where a twelve year old girl had a butcher knife and was making threats once. I was able to disarm her without as much as a bruise for either of us and I didn't even have a riot shield. I doubt the 96 year old had much on her.
I am sure they followed their training for entry of a room with a knife wielding maniac perfectly though. Too bad they didn't take time to think.
 
You disarmed a person armed with a butcher knife single handedly and with no injuries? You must be Chuck Norris. Or lucky.

Good for you, lots of cops have died trying to take sharp pointy things away from people.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/2/dc-police-officer-stabbed-fatally-shoots-suspect/

http://www.ktva.com/home/outbound-x...Officer-Stabbed-159451205.html?corder=reverse

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/05/cleveland_clinic.html

Thats what I came up with in 2 minutes of Google searching. I am not going to take knives away from anyone bare handed. Not happening, anyone who tries it is a fool.

Could the police in the above situation done something else, or handled things another way? Maybe, I was not there. But going into the room and taking a knife away from someone, anyone (even a 95 year old), no way.
 
Conn. Trooper, in this case you defend the indefensible.

Victim was 96, and used a walker. Are you really going to claim they could not have either backed away and evacuated others from the immediate area, or easily barricaded the person in a room? This scenario screamed for waiting out the 96yo, but it sounds like the police wanted to take immediate charge.

Against a mobile person, I would agree that taking a knife would have been risky. In this case, they just needed to wait until she nodded off.
 
That's not what I said. I'm talking about the post above where john claimed he took a knife away from a 12 year old girl without any injuries. A 12 year old can stab you pretty easily.

I actually didn't comment about the other story except to say I wasn't there and they possibly could have done things differently.
 
96 year old using a walker refuses medical attention. Police first tase him. When he fails to comply at that point they shoot him in the stomach with a bean bag round. What kind of idiot things you can shoot a 96 year old in the stomach with a bean bag round and not kill them?
Click to expand...

I give them credit for at least trying "non-lethal" alternatives. I can think of a few places he would have just been shot 41 times.
 
I am just trying to imagine an attempt to mount a self-defense claim, if I as a private citizen were to shoot a 96yo, walker-using, knife-armed assailant.

I can't imagine it would go well.

It might work in a SYG state, but it would not in a duty to retreat state.

The only reason I could think of that would cause me to do such a thing would be if there were innocent third parties who could not retreat or be evacuated. (For instance, if the 96yo disabled person were threatening the premature babies in the incubator room, or the unconscious patient on the operating table.)

That all this stemmed from a refusal to accept medical treatment makes me think of, "We destroyed the village to save the village."

And back to militarization we go...
 
What did he require medical treatment for? A stroke? Heart attack? Something that required immediate treatment and they couldn't wait until he fell asleep?

Holy heck!!! We don't know, but lets just jump on the bad cops bandwagon!! I love how every time one of these threads come up, people are immediately able to state facts about how the bad cops did everything wrong just from reading a three paragraph news article. Love it.
 
Conn. Trooper, would waiting to administer heart medication have had worse effects than the steps taken had?

Do Tasers not have a history of, and come with warnings as a result of, serious injuries or death to the elderly and to cardiac patients?

Is the use of bean bags at close range recommended against the extremely elderly?

I love how every time one of these threads comes up, you leap to the defense of LE.

There would have to be some extreme, unreported circumstances to make this incident anything other than a charlie foxtrot, and you should agree.

Edit: Going back to your theory about heart medication... My wife is an RN, and I seem to recall her saying the first Hippocratic rule is: Do No Harm.

So medical protocol should not have indicated the use of a Taser...
 
Last edited:
Conn. Trooper, would waiting to administer heart medication have had worse effects than the steps taken had? No idea, I am not a DR. I don't believe anyone on scene intended to kill the man.

Do Tasers not have a history of, and come with warnings as a result of, serious injuries or death to the elderly and to cardiac patients? Also no idea, I do not have a Taser, and have not been trained in Taser use.

Is the use of bean bags at close range recommended against the extremely elderly? I don't use them, so no clue as to their deployment.

I love how every time one of these threads comes up, you leap to the defense of LE. I am not defending them. I am offering a counter viewpoint with other thoughts and ideas. I am also not ready to condemn anybody, LE or otherwise, based on a three paragraph news article.
There would have to be some extreme, unreported circumstances to make this incident anything other than a charlie foxtrot, and you should agree. I was not there, neither were you. Do you truly believe that a bunch of cops all decided to just kill this guy? Or maybe, just maybe, the situation led them to think this was the best course of action. Keeping in mind that everybody there was going to be writing reports for hours about the use of force. And I would guess there was a supervisor on scene calling the shots. They all decided this was the way to handle things, yet you know better after reading a news article?
Edit: Going back to your theory about heart medication... My wife is an RN, and I seem to recall her saying the first Hippocratic rule is: Do No Harm.

So medical protocol should not have indicated the use of a Taser...
You know this how? Your experienced with Taser use and protocol?
 
Do you truly believe that a bunch of cops all decided to just kill this guy?
Click to expand...
Nobody suggested that but you. All the discussion I have seen centers around questioning the judgment of treating a 95-year-old to not one, but two less-than-lethal weapons.

Regardless of training, certifications, or anything else, a person with half a brain should understand the dire risks of deploying these weapons on a 95 year-old man. If this is not, on its face, bad judgment, then what on earth is?
 
Put the shoe on the other foot. Don't you think maybe there is more to the story when the Taser didn't work? Or when threatened with bean bag rounds he still didn't drop the knife? Maybe there is more to the story.
 
I'm certainly open to any relevant facts. With police officers, it seems to be a knee-jerk response to afford every imaginable benefit of the doubt. For the record, I believe that is how it should be, giving their charge.

I just wish citizens (absent relevant facts coloring the case) could get the same benefit of the doubt that police officers afford their own.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Conn. Trooper, for a brief period I got to sit on the arming board for a base's security department. At a later time, I was a training officer for a reserve unit that was 50% MAA.

So, while I myself was not LEO, I did have to be at least somewhat up to speed on the force continuum, and do some reading on theoretically LTL options. I have read up on such periodically, since, out of general interest.

I would be curious as to some specific circumstances where you would think use of force against a severely mobility-limited person, not armed with a ranged weapon, would be appropriate.

I have listed a couple, myself, but I would be surprised if the article's writer omitted mention of immobilized potential victims in the immediate area.
 
I have no idea. Did they try to wait him out? Was there another patient in the room? Did he need immediate medical attention? Was he threatening to harm himself? Does that PD have adequate personnel to sit there for hours in the hope that he falls asleep or gives up? There are a million things we don't know. That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm just not ready to throw anyone under the bus based on a news story. If a gun owner was condemned immediately based on a news report, posters would be howling bloody murder.

I am very surprised it ever came to end the way it did. Putting the shoe on the other foot, if I am of sound mind and was tasered and threatened with bean bags, I would give up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top