The Militarization of Police...A good thing?

[Hunter Customs]

There is much, much, more but most important thing he taught me is that police were PART OF not APART FROM the community in which they SERVE!
Serve.
Military tactics have no place in police work. (there are special circumstances that require special responses--I was Lt. SWAT when hurt)
Militarization of police is awful.
After I left police work & healed up I learned the new Chief was one of those that aspired to the position as a working retirement.
The fellows, the young & new, [...]wear sap gloves, jump boots, carry unauthorized AR's in the squad cars, make an arrest over anything for any excuse & "resisting arrest" is a way too common charge.
Citizen complaints & law suits are ordinary these days.
Glad I'm not there. I EARNED the respect of the ethinic communities, had many friends that looked to me for help & some risked thier butts to help me.
Community policing is spot on correct.
Police might be held to a higher standard than citizens but ordinary citizens they are.

jeager106, I totally agree with what you've said above.
I've known many fine officers such as yourself but sadly they are being replaced with officers that have a [different] mindset.

[snip]

By the way, thank you for your considerate service to your community, we need more officers like you.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

 

[kraigwy]

Guess I'm old school.

I adhere to Sir Robert Peel's concept of policing. I don't believe in militarized police officers.

I believe it conflicts with Peel's idea of community policing. Police should be professional looking, uniform, tie (clip on of course) and should get out of the car and converse with the people who he is policing.

The citizen knows what is happening in his/her community better then the officer who seldom lives where he works (I did, I lived in my area), but I'm the exception.

I liked to get out of the car and talk to people, I don't believe I could have accomplished that looking like something out of a Rambo movie. I wanted the citizen to set down with me for a cup of coffee, not gather his family and lock themselves behind closed doors when I come down the street.

Yes I carried a sniper rifle, but I never felt the need of a ghillie suite, drag bag, 50 cal sniper rifle for city emergencies. It was there when I needed it, but I didn't walk around with it.

I was LE before Tasers came out. I think they are nothing but a excuse for not practicing good police work.

Plain cloths is my pet peeve. I think its silly for detectives to walk around with their badge and gun exposed, they want people to know their a cop, put on a uniform. I believe detectives should wear suits and ties.

Yes there is a need for undercover cops, but they are just that, undercover, no need for them to run around looking like dirt bags, with their gun and badge advertising they are cops.

There is the need for special units, SWAT, EOD, etc. But there is no need for SWAT or bomb squads patrolling the street.

As Peel said, for police to be effective, they need to be part of the community, and the citizen needs to see that they are part of the community.

I know I've stepped on toes here, I also know I probably wouldn't make it in the LE community today. But I don't think I would want to.

I have a son in LE now, I'm constantly on his ass reminding him he works for the citizen, not the army, I think I have him trained, but he does relapse every now and then only to find Dad on his ass again.

Study the works of Sir Edward Peel and O.W. Wilson. I believe they have the idea what works and what doesn't.

 

[Jim567]

In 1964 our little 10 man police in force in CT had a WWII DUK.

Why?

I am uncomfortable with the police force having military vehicles.

Same with walking around in military fatigues --

I see that a lot with LE in NFla.

As an army veteran it rubs me the wrong way.

The bomb squad is called out here when someone leaves a paper bag on the sidewalk -- really. Its embarrassing and expensive.

Two sides to the story ---- I guess.

 

[Evan Thomas]

No more Nazi references, please.

 

[44 AMP]

In 1964 our little 10 man police in force in CT had a WWII DUK.

Why?

I am uncomfortable with the police force having military vehicles.

I can actually see a reason for having a DUKW. Its both a 2.5ton truck, AND a boat. A small dept who had a DUKW (and probably got it for next to nothing) wouldn't need to spend money on a boat.

Police divers doing searches can operate off a DUKW, and while not the best thing to patrol lakes & rivers (not very fast in the water), anything else you can do off a similar size boat, you can do off a DUKW. And you don't need a trailer, or a boat launch ramp...

I'm ok, with police having milsurp trucks, cars, and such. I draw the line at armored and tracked vehicles.

The military and the police SHOULD be separate functions. The military recognizes this, and has for generations. Why do you think there are Military Police?

I'm not going to argue about the SWAT units and such, I think they ought to exist, for those rare times when they are needed. And, existing also means the training needed. However, I think that they should be KEPT for such emergencies, and NOT used for anything else.

Military weapons and tactics for police should be kept behind a "break glass in case of emergency" barrier, and not used whenever some administrator thinks there might be a weapon present...

For anything other than an actual emergency police should have to go through extreme (administrative) measures to justify SWAT.

But even if this is the rule, there will be places where it becomes a simple rubber stamp approval. That is a problem with the people in the system, more than the system itself.

Same with a judge that signs any (and every) warrant put before them. Once authorization becomes "automatic", the checks & balances against excess are gone.

Maybe its just me, but boots, black uniforms, "fritz" helmets, automatic weapons, and an 'us vs. the world" mindset just isn't what I consider the proper thing for police.

These things have a place in the world, but the Police isn't the right place, as far as I'm concerned.

And just what's up with the ninja masks, anyway?

 

[JimDandy]

In 1964 our little 10 man police in force in CT had a WWII DUK.

Why?

I am uncomfortable with the police force having military vehicles.

You're uncomfortable with police having a retired military vehicle a bunch of port cities allow in the hands of private individuals for amphibious tours of the area? A truck that has no armor? And only a one in four chance of having a ring mount for a firearm they don't have?

I'd be more uncomfortable at the maintenance costs. Or wonder about selling it to a Duck Tour and using the money to buy a police boat, assuming the place didn't have geography making a DUKW a uniquely handy item to have.

44AMP and I were replying at the same time, with much the same thought, though I go a step further. I don't particularly mind if they have armor. Tracks are an issue for the wear and tear they may cause on the roadways, but armor doesn't bother me. Heck, they're already wearing body armor most of the rest of us can't get.

 

[tyme]

The gear and technology and vehicles of militarization concern me, but I'm more worried about the psychological aspects. It's the thinking, the mindset, the executive function behind the deployment and use of personnel and gear, that is ultimately where the problem exists.

Why are SWAT teams and SWAT-style (no-knock, aggressive) tactics so common?

Because, as the saying goes, "to the drug warrior, evidence is more important than people's lives"?

Because that which is purchased and trained for must be regularly used and executed lest the training fade?

Because every means, no matter how extreme, should be utilized to reduce the risk to LEOs so they can go home to their families?

Because society has broken down so much that cities are war zones? Is there a reason, other than lack of resources (SWAT officers and armored vehicles), why SWAT teams aren't first to arrive to burglary or domestic violence calls?

We are what we repeatedly do.

And if police routinely get into the mentality of doing no-knocks or 5-second-knocks (then-break-down-the-door-and-toss-a-flashbang-in-a-crib), does it take wild speculation to guess what will happen to their psychologies and the overall attitude of LEOs in any official interactions?

Is the "warrior mindset" something to be admired or shunned in the absence of a counterbalancing aspect of calm and restraint (like that which many eastern philosophies instruct)? Why is it that martial arts schools emphasize restraint and disengagement until defensive violence becomes unavoidable, while Law Enforcement seems to go in the opposite direction?

 

[NickySantoro]

The Militarization of Police...A good thing?

No.

 

[manta49]

The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout. I think they would change their view very fast. SWAT are OK but you could be dead before they arrive. It depends what the police are coming up against what weapons and vehicle they need to be equipped with. Some places are more dangerous than others, I know here they would it would depend what area they were going into would dictate what equipment they would take with them. What would be appropriate for one area could be seen as over the top for another. Here the vehicle below for example would only be used in certain areas.

 

[JimDandy]

The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout.

That's not especially common. Not common enough to base all but the most extreme response on for certain. However, the question that should be asked... what's your alternative plan? How do you propose maintaining the safety of officers doing their duty while removing the extra armor and protection afforded by their equipment and tactics?

 

[Ruger480]

How do you propose maintaining the safety of officers doing their duty while removing the extra armor and protection afforded by their equipment and tactics?

I don't think anyone is looking to take away "bullet proof" vests but at the same time, we're not about to give them armored Humvees and full auto M4s for patrol either.

The image of a black hummer with a light bar on top, slowly cruising my neighborhood streets does not rest well with me.

 

[patriotic]

A tad off topic. I recall many years ago a naval officer did a survey of the Marines at Camp Pendelton. He ask if you were given an order to go out in the community and collect all their firearms, would you obey the order? The majority of the junior enlisted and officers said yes. the senior enlisted and middle grade officers had very unkind words about the order and anyone that gave such an order. What happened in the aftermath of Katrina I think would give any LEO a pause to consider such an order.

I am really surprised by that. Although I am former military and working as a civilian at an Air Force base I find it hard to believe our military would follow an unlawful order to disarm law abiding citizens and violate their constitutional rights; after all they took an oath to “protect and defend” the constitution from all enemies “foreign and domestic”. When I was in basic training and schooled in the UCMJ they were very specific about obeying “lawful” orders. Have we eliminated that kind of training? Haven’t we learned that “just following orders” is no excuse for illegal actions?__________________

 

[Merad]

The issue isn’t necessarily “militarization” but lack of proper training, oversight and accountability.

When your only tool is a hammer, every problem begins to looks like a nail...

The biggest problem is the war on drugs. End it, already. We don't particularly care if people want to ruin their lives with alcohol (a very powerful drug in its own right), why should pot be any different?

 

[tyme]

The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout.

How does militarization help deal with a situation like the Bank of America shootout? What was needed, other than people who had rifles and could shoot them, from better cover than squad cars? I don't think any of us is against police having rifles.

 

[JimDandy]

I don't think any of us is against police having rifles.

Aside from people already complaining about M4's and Barrett 50s? You think they wouldn't also object to LAPD with an M24 or it's M2010 upgrade? Let alone the stand-off headshots required to end the Bank Robbery since we seem to also object to a 50 BMG rifle to the engine block?

I don't think anyone is looking to take away "bullet proof" vests but at the same time, we're not about to give them armored Humvees and full auto M4s for patrol either

Body Armor wasn't a militarization of the police forces? Quite possibly one of the first of them? Is bullet proof glass on the patrol cars also "armor"? Do you object to bullet resistant patrol cars providing them cover? Why does it matter if the "car" was made by Ford, Chevy or AMC?

 

[Ruger480]

Do you object to bullet resistant patrol cars providing them cover? Why does it matter if the "car" was made by Ford, Chevy or AMC?

To answer the first question: no.
To answer the second: it has to do with the mindset of the person driving and their interpretation of their job arising from the items they are issued.

 

[gyvel]

The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout.

This is not a new phenomenon. "Shootouts" have occurred all through the history of this country as well as others. Two that come to mind are the Barrow gang and Ma Barker's group.

Dealing with isolated instances like you mention are not a justification of a militarization of the police.

 

[ronl]

Do I agree with the militarization of the police? Absolutely not. Almost daily, there are stories of abuse of power by police forces around the country. It a subject that deeply disturbs me. There is simply no excuse good enough to justify the taking of a single innocent life, period. Rules for use of units such as SWAT need to be defined absolutely and adhered to strictly. There is absolutely no need for no-knock raids, and they should be eliminated. There should be some type of local oversight established, using ordinary citizens, with the power to weed out those whose egos are too big for police work. There should be a zero tolerance policy concerning abuse of any type coming from police. They should set the standard for behavior, and that standard should be very high. How would you feel if it were your child, or wife, maimed or killed in the service of a warrant at the wrong address? We were just doing our job is of little consolation at that point, and it is an absolute lie, as at that point it is clearly obvious that someone wasn't.

 

[JimDandy]

Do I agree with the militarization of the police? Absolutely not.

As it's already been pointed out that body armor is itself a militarization of the police forces, should we take that to mean you want to remove body armor?

Do you object to a police helicopter flying over the interstates. cities, and towns "quarterbacking" high speed chases, vectoring ground units to unsafe drivers, and so on?

Global Positioning technology?

Scrambled radio transmissions?

Any sort of firearms at all as it's fairly common for the police forces to adopt current or previous Armed Forces firearms, especially side arms, for multiple reasons, not the least of which was cost and familiarity.

 

[motorhead0922]

I think the litmus test is this: If ordinary citizens (i.e. civilians) are prohibited from owning and operating the equipment, then police (i.e. civilians) can't own and operate that same equipment either.