Fun fact; our military is planning on putting retired A-10 Warthogs complete with GAU-8's still mounted out for surplus. I'll bet armed Predators start being blown out at surplus-subsized rates before the decade is out. Something to think about (and alternately lament & drool over
)
So many really good statements and arguments on this thread; I can see many people have pondered on this as much as I have. Hopefully that in and of itself is illustrative that there just may be something to our worries about authoritarian police. I wish I'd been able to post more frequently throughout the discussion
I would suggest the MORE dangerous activity is a violent military style raid, endangering innocents and violating rights is far more damaging to society than a drug dealer
This is actually the foundation for our entire concept of government, guys (LEO's especially); pay attention.
You're kidding? That whole fiasco was over criminal possession of firearms? I'm sorry, weren't those the laws we want enforced more than most any other, as a crime with a firearm is about as heinous and dangerous as there is on a frequent basis in the law enforcement community?
Yup, and by any means necessary. IIRC, both RR and especially Waco were borne out of personal beefs, which escalated to trumped up charges, which escalated to federal involvement, paranoia, and
really stupid decisions on all sides (but the most unforgiveable ones were at the hands of the people we pay to know better). BTW, the RR family hadn't committed any "heinous" crime until two government agents surprised the boys in the woods where they had a fatal shootout, or before a sniper blew the mother's head off by accident.
The image of a black hummer with a light bar on top, slowly cruising my neighborhood streets does not rest well with me.
I doubt you will ever see a humvee on patrol.
It's okay, right? They were hunting a terrorist, after all (okay, so maybe not
routine patrol)
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”.
Really? Why is a similar oath not sufficient to constrain our officials, nor an agreed-upon pact between them and the people meant to define and limit their authorities? When the order comes, it will not be couched as an obvious violation of God-given rights; it will be in time of panic, under false pretenses, with no consequences (see: every human rights abuse ever)
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?
Because a lightly-armored Crown Vic (or whatever) can't be used to destroy a building, that's why. "Militarization" has little to do with actual equipment and
everything to do with
choice of equipment and tactics. I suspect that within a few years (if not already) we'll be hearing cops try to justify Stingers for errant drones, and LAW rockets for armored vehicles (which have existed since forever, btw). The police are our stewards; containing and cleaning social messes so they do not accumulate. The military is a destructive instrument used for destroying opposition, and nothing more. There is a reason the latter has trouble pacifying territory while mobilized, and why the former has no business adopting the same tactics.
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.
This is the key. This is the key. Believe it or not, were the police limited to the same means of force (but not scale or authorization) as we peasants,
they would be at the very forefront of guarding our constitutional rights. The exemptions were a cunning way to sever their bond to the citizenry (a key "check" against higher authority), and that was the start of them becoming a standing army. The army has lots of immunities and exemptions, too, and that's why they have no business operating on our soil in mobilized capacity.
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.
Unfortunately, we have been pitted against our police specifically by our elected officials, in the hopes of obtaining their loyalty. Why else do mayors insist on appointing police chiefs who demand inflammatory tactics, weapons, policy goals, and special exemptions and immunities? So the police will be accountable to no one but the mayor; that's why. I think the best example of this separation from the community is the police response to one of their officers being killed; time and again it's been shown the entire organization is thrown into a fixed rage with rampant abuses of the public, sometimes even in retribution. Except in towns with the
proper police/civic bond, there is rarely such an outcry for a non-LEO being struck down (and there is only a very thin argument to be made that a murderer who kills a cop is more dangerous and 'rabid' than when the same person kills someone on the street)
You really want to hang your hat on that argument? The same argument that says anyone with an AR-15 is bound to go on a shooting spree because of the mindset that goes with having it?
It's foolish to pretend our choice of kit has no bearing on our mindset. We are limited to very few avenues in order to meet our needs; the police are less so, so we get to see their motivations more plainly. Control, superiority, invulnerability. That is not what we have police for.
Yes and the police reacted after being out gunned [gangsters] by acquiring sub machine guns and BAR automatic rifles, they have to be armed to meat the threat.
Actually, machine guns of all stripes were exceedingly rare in crimes of the day. A few splashy do-ups like the assorted hyped gangs (mass shooter celebs of their day, btw) and notorious incidents like the Valentines massacre, plus a whole whale-load of contemporary fiction give us the impression Tommy guns were everywhere; they were not (well, not until the police starting buying tons of them). The police of the day
actually responded to the growing Prohibition violence (which they were certainly drivers of, same as the drug war now), committed overwhelmingly with cheap small-bore guns then as now, by getting their newly-acquired military-grade hardware banned from legal civilian ownership (the Feds, fresh off the Bonus Army fiasco, were the major driver, of course). I imagine the police had learned their lesson in tolerating civilian acquisition of the last major weapons breakthrough, smokeless powder, and were determined to cap their capabilities once and for all.
One issue I feel is ignored regularly on when looking at this and similar issues is how funding has slowly changed over time. Years ago, such essential services (fire/police/streets) where funded properly for the most part to ensure a basic level of staffing and equipment. There wasn't a question of not funding these areas years ago.
This is primary reason why the cops having expensive fancy guns, regardless of whether I'd be allowed, is not equitable to my RKBA; they ain't payin' for it, but I'm payin' for both of ours. Anyone here who is aware of their PD possessing an H&K MP7 should raise holy hell over the +6000$ spent on that one weapon. Years ago, officers were a hell of a lot cheaper than now, and needlessly so. Stuff like pistol-grade body armor is far cheaper than funerals and an easy means of preventing them. Same as crash-safe police cars. Just as there is no reason the police should have a monopoly on force, neither should the public over its societal maintenance crew. I'd want my police armed as well as I'd be allowed were I headed into the same areas.
And if you can't find a nail, you create one so you can use your shiny new hammer.
It will be taken from you as well as your job if you ever run out.
I do see the police sniper as a valuable resource.
The sniper role is where the modern wave of militarization all started (LA shootout). Which is funny since snipers are a fairly recent
military tactic, having originally come from civilian hunters (neither military nor law enforcement). The sniper is a very odd unit as far as military tactics because of this basic difference, as well.
Some people dont remember the violent 70s when crime was at a high. I wonder why back then the police didnt start carrying rifles and semi-automatic pistols. I wonder how they dealt with things carrying just a revolver. Today crime is at historical lows and people cant see the reasons, but if you were alive during the 70s then you would know.
I, too, have long noticed that paranoid police militarization conveniently coincided with both a certain group's newfound civil rights with regards to police enforcement, as well the new drug boogeyman created to keep enforcement trained on that exact same group.
The police in Britain have their own special problems.
The lack of physical means, legal permission, or (now) social tradition for the people to defend themselves from criminals plays an enormous role in the true need for a police state over there. That's a lot different than the USA. Same as how Israel's longstanding shooting war fought everywhere simultaneously is the driver for their police state. We are fortunate enough to be peaceful enough that we need not restrict our rights as a matter of practicality (Jefferson was speaking of America specifically when he compared dangers of freedom to safety of tyranny. Brutal environments require brutal solutions)
I noticed the Mods were pruning references to Nazis; can we do the same for the
even more ridiculous references to Call of Duty/Red Dawn as well as Mayberry? Robocop, too, if that's been mentioned. At least abusive Nazi police* were a real thing, working at the individual level under the same sort of motivations as any patrol officer (just doin' my job the best I can, for those I care about, to help my community).
TCB
*Which, as far as police operations before the war, were predominantly not much different from any other run of the mill unaccountable police state organization, and highly regarded by many around the world. How
that is not relevant today escapes me
