The Feds and philosophy

N

Nightcrawler

New member
Seeking the opinions of TFLers regarding Federal Law Enforcement. Specifically, what do you think of the Agents that do the job, the Bureaucrats who plan the job, or the Politicians who are supposed to oversee the job? What SHOULD the role of the Feds be, ideally?

On a related note, would the militarization of police really be so bad if there was no push to eliminate RKBA? I mean, if you could walk into any gunshop, and after showing you were 18 or 21 or whatever, purchase a belt-fed machine gun (Assuming you had the bread to buy it, which many of us don't) woudl it really matter if more cops went running around dressed like infantry? If there was no BATF, would we really care about federal law enforcement? If we could buy suppressed, night-vision capable sniper rifles too, would we care that the FBI bought them?

Pretty philosophical, I know, but bare with me. The BIG question is, if we have a Constitution to guarantee freedoms, and RKBA as insurance to that guarantee (assuming RKBA was unabridged), does it matter what kind of government we have?

And finally, how come government always seeks more power? To the politicians in washington REALLY go to bed each night thinking, "Boy, I sure managed to take away some people's freedom today! Soon my power will be solidified" Or is it more complicated than that? The people that REALLY scare me are the do-gooders who are willing to do ANYthing if it makes them feel safer, including trying to take away MY freedom...
 
The first part I will not touch with a ten foot pool.I think waco,ruby ridge and Elian says it all
Second part;
Do you really think that if all police are militarized that we will have a constitution left?There is only one reason to militarize and that is for surpression.
Power breeds coruption and the lust for more power.It is a continuing cycle until broken by the people.Part of the power cycle is the brainwashing of the people to hold the power.We are and have been in that phase for the last 30 or so yrs.Too many people too brainwashed for too long.The brainwashing is starting younger and younger so as to be complete.Talk to some 8 to 10 yr olds once.This brainwashing is very easy to do if there are no parents to counter it.
Do gooders are people who the brainwashing has been completed on.They are the enemy of thinking people everywhere.
The oppsite of that are the right wing brainwashed people.These are the ones that belong to groups like aryan nations and the christian patriots defense league.
The majority of the rest of US are in the center some place with some leaning both directions
Water hose ready to put out flames.
 
I think most federal law enforcement is illegitimate. There are what, 4 or 5 crimes against the United States spelled out in the Constitution? Do we really need multiple alphabet soup agencies strutting around enforcing laws that aren't even laws?

Maintain one federal police agency that's charged with investigating the violation of the few crimes identified in the federal constitution, and leave it at that.

I don't really care what cops wear, and long as they obey the law and don't trample people's rights.

I really sit on the fence on the militarization issue: On one hand, I think good arguments can be made for certain things that cops do or certain equipment they carry that seem very military. For instance, entry teams wear black nomex hoods to protect their faces from fire. Nothing wrong with that. Then on the other hand, I hate the idea of stormtroopers with their faces obscured. It's just not right. It gives the impression of - well - criminals and armed robbery and the like. Why should the good guys need to hide their identity? Yeah, I know, undercover work and all. Well don't have the undercover guys on the entry team, then.
 
First we must define militarization.

Is it the carrying of full-auto weapons? No, as long as those weapons are used in self-defense.

Is it the wearing of camo instead of a standard patrol uniform? No. We should define men by their actions, not by their dress.

Is it the use of armored vehicles painted camo or army green? No, as long as those vehicles aren't used to facilitate an illegal killing. Is that case, it's still not militarization, it's murder.

What is militarization of police? I don't have a good definition.
 
deanf- it's all those things. There's not one particular thing that is a make or break. It's a trend, not an event.

The U.S. Marshals ought to be able to do whatever the federal government needs to do.

The drive for power is common to all agencies. Once a department or agency exists it tends to want to preserve itself and extend its reach. This is not just true in law enforcement. The people that work there want to be more important, to have bigger salaries, to have more employees to do their work.
 
No Federal Police. None. No!

As for State and local level, there really are places where the police should be equiped like Infantry. I'm not endorsing the WOD or the neat no-knocks that happen with lunatic frequentcy, I'm talking about certain high-crime, high-murder rate areas where the entire population, including the victims, are extremely hostile to the Police.
If I were a policeman, I would demand como gear, bodyarmor, and a serious carbine to patrol these areas. A dress uniform and a Sig just wouldn't cut it.
 
militarization et.al.

How's this for a definition:

Militarization of the police is caused by passing laws that are difficult to enforce such that enforcement results in violations of peoples constitutionally protected civil rights.

Example: certain drug laws have led to police using the so-called "no-knock warrant". I don't care what the S.C. says, that is a violation of the fourth amendment.

Keep in mind that I don't think ALL drugs should be legalized and that example was not intended to cause a side debate on that subject.

As for politicians in Washington going to sleep at night dreaming of power. With a few exceptions, I think most of them really want to do something to help people, and you know that saying:

"The road to HELL is paved with good intentions"

Or

"The road to Fascism/Communism is paved with government programs"

:D

Remember, if government didn't have the money collected by confiscating peoples income, it would have a small fraction of the power it has today.
 
We Don't Need All These Agencies at The Federal and State Level

We need ONE federal police agency to enforce federal law. Most federal law consists of rules and regulations set out by the agencies (Cabinet level and below) who are charged with overseeing the various parts of the US Code. Each of these agencies needs an unarmed (and not cloaked with any police power) Inspecter Generals office to investigate alleged violations of the US Code. If said investigation turns up evidence of criminal conduct they then turn the case over to the police. They don't need weapons, SWAT teams, encrypted radios or other neat toys. They do need years of experience in the business they are trying to regulate and a background in accounting or other specialty pertinate to the field they regulate (what would an accountant know about meat packing?). A special unit in the one federal agency would be charged with investigating abuse of power, fraud and bribery within the federal system. Outside of the Border Patrol this would be the largest part of my ideal federal law enforcement agency.

Many states could adopt this model too. You'd probably be surprized if you knew just how many state agencies have armed police departments.

As for the militarization of local police departments, it's a touchy issue. You have to have the means at hand to deal with any situation that may arise, but you also have to be approachable to the citizens you serve. You should only get the BDUs, kevlar helmets and heavy weapons out when they are needed. Not to show them off. Normal patrol should be conducted in nice looking uniforms (not BDUs). There should be a policy on search warrants and it should be adhered to. The TAC, SWAT, SRT whatever you call it shouldn't routinely serve search warrants just so they can utilize their expensive training and equipment.

Jeff
 
A good discussion so far on a topic that could easily have become a flamefest. Thank you all from the FNG moderator for making my job easy so far.

Now, as to defining militarization of police; what is the main difference between police and the military? Equipment is a big one, certainly, but I would argue that mindset, tactics and strategy are the biggest. When the police begin to convert to military mindset and tactics, they've been militarized. Any cop with the mindset that the people he arrests are "the enemy" or any kind of shoot-first mentality has been militarized.

What this definition would mean is that militarization of police would still be very hard to define--how do you objectively tell the difference between an officer who has evaluated the threat and decided he has to fire and an officer who had his mind made up to fire on the first "subject" he saw before he came in the door?

I don't have any answers for ya, just stirrin' the pot.
 
The Main Difference Between Police and the Military

Don,

Having served a long time as a part time police officer and being a career NCO in the Army I can say that the difference is in the mission. Although the past administration has blurred the line even more with it's commitment to "peacekeeping" and "nation building".

You send in the military when you want someone defeated. The military will destroy his equipment and infastructure and kill his soldiers. You call for the police when you want someone to assist you. The police will investigate a crime, respond with force if you are in danger (but we all know how "timely" that response can be), hopefully arrest the suspect and gather the evidence needed to convict him. Unlike the military which is based on the application of force, the police use force only as a last resort (or are supposed to). The military is the last resort.

I think that what many people consider the militarization of the police began in the late '60s or early '70s when LAPD formed what's generally credited with the first SWAT team. Since there was no police doctrine for these types of operations, they looked to the military. Taking things from the Army and Marines and adopting them to police operations. It's interesting to note that much of the new military doctrine for urban operations is borrowed and modified from police tactical operations. This exchange of tactics, techniques and procedures is not all bad if it allows both the police and the military to do a very dangerous job more safely.

I think you're closer in your definition of mindset. When a police department ceases to consider itself part of the community it serves and acts more like an occupation army, then it's militarized. I think this "militarization" has as much to do with federal mandates and slow loss of local control as it does with BDUs, kevlar helmets and automatic weapons. See many of these federal grants that buy equipment and hire officers have strings attached. Strings that say how you must use the equipment and officers. For the most part police departments enforce the law according to local mores and values. There are many jurisdictions where possesion of small amounts of marijuana is virtually ignored. Other laws are similarly enforced. A gun in your car is liable to be looked at a lot differently here in Southern Illinois by a police officer then it would be in Cook County.

Mandates from above on how you enforce the law in your jurisdiction only serves to distance a department from the people it serves. It helps foster this us vs. them attitude. I think a department becomes militarized when it begins to see itself as an occupying force and the only force that brings order to an area. Unfortunately there are areas of the country where this is the case. Most of these areas are in places where we've replaced core family and community values with the values of the "state"...imagine that!

Clearly written laws, that correspond with accepted mores and values will help. Keeping our police under local control will help more.

Jeff
 
Example: certain drug laws have led to police using the so-called "no-knock warrant". I don't care what the S.C. says, that is a violation of the fourth amendment.
Click to expand...

Are you really protected by the constitution from a no-knock warrant service? Once probable cause has been established for a search warrant, your 4th amendment protection ceases to exist for the purposes of the warrant, yes? The police can enter the premises listed on the warrant in any manner they deem appropriate, yes? If no, what prohibits them? Is it that a no-knock is "unreasonable"?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

See to me that says once a warrant has been issued, the police can search or seize in a manner that we might consider "unreasonable". In other words, the protection against an "unreasonable" search vanishes once the warrant has been issued.

The constitution doesn't spell out the specific procedures for serving a warrant, and I'd say it certainly doesn't protect you from a no-knock warrant, once probable cause has been established for the warrant.

Do I hate no-knock warrants? Yes, but I'm not sure there's any constitutioinal protection against them.
 
unreasonable...

deanf,

Good points however, what exactly constitutes probable cause these days? If your neighbor "smells" pot (burning oregano), if someone sees you on your porch or balcony cleaning your "machine gun" (a semi-auto AR-15).

I consider the kicking in of a door "unreasonable". I think the Founders would agree (images of redcoats bursting in uninvited).

The no-knock invites violence. It is the police instigating a violent confrontation where one may not be necessary.

Like I said earlier, when laws are passed that are difficult to enforce, individual rights start to get trampled. It becomes more and more necessary to "push the envelope" when interpreting the Bill of Rights.

Check out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a2c2d96f80.htm

and from another article concerning that same case:

While any request to search a home must be evaluated with care, Silverstein said, judges should be especially wary of requests for no-knock warrants. "No-knock warrants pose a danger to the lives of police officers as well as innocent civilians," Silverstein said. "Many Colorado residents legally own firearms, and Colorado's controversial 'Make My Day' law increases the risk to police. If police do not successfully communicate their identity in the split-second when they kick down the door, they are likely to encounter gunfire from citizens who believe they are justifiably defending their homes from lawless intruders."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top