The Militarization of Police...A good thing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just watched a video of a CHP officer on top of a defenseless frail homeless lady beating the heck out of her with his fist, this is a prime example of the (us verses them) mentality we are dealing with that many in law enforcement seems to have, it needs to stop.

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com
 
Events like the Boston bombing should have been handled with a big force to show such things would not be taken lightly.
Click to expand...
That was not the intent of the police response, nor should it have been.

Wait, so even though exactly two guys were responsible, it is necessary to lock down, invade the homes of, and general terrify hundreds if not thousands of people in order to show the police are serious? I'm pretty sure that was not the legal reasoning given for the mass-searches of homes and curfew.
Click to expand...
At the time, they didn't know how well-armed the Tsarnaev brothers were, if they had other accomplices, or if they were planning further attacks. To a large extent, the actions taken were necessary.

If there was overreach and abuse, we still have a responsive court system to hold those responsible accountable.

Let's dial it back just a bit if we want this one to stay open, folks.
 
Barnbwt, your arguments are logically very sound, but you have to realize what you're up against. Mods, I don't want to come off as heavy handed, but simply put, you're biased. Let's see, SWAT magazine? Okay, let's assume that there's a distinct connection to police, and a natural bias to legitimize police actions. I think I have a uniquely distinctive perspective, as I am involved in private security, which places me just about mid point between an ordinary civilian and the police. So let's look at this entire question from a logical point of view. There is a pertinent question to ask here. Does the level of threat faced by the police rise to the point of necessity whereby the use of military type weapons and equipment is justified? In 95+% of the situations, no. If indeed, the purpose of the police force is to subjugate citizens to the point of compliance regardless of the circumstance, then the use of military type weapons/tactics is justified, but at that point we have instituted a de facto police state. As I have stated before, the entire process needs much greater scrutiny from a legal standpoint, and much more stringent guidelines must be adopted and adhered to.
 
Let's see, SWAT magazine? Okay, let's assume that there's a distinct connection to police, and a natural bias to legitimize police actions.
Click to expand...
Considering that "SWAT" in this case refers to "Survival Weapons and Tactics," your assumption might be incorrect. So might the overbroad conclusion.
 
If I am wrong, then I wholeheartedly apologize. In this case it means I assumed which made an ass out of me. Regardless, that does not negate the central issue of, Does the end justify the means? There is another question that needs to be asked. Since it it Fed agencies that are providing the equipment in question, what are the strings attached? Let's get real here, because I know you don't get something for nothing, especially when the Feds are concerned.
 
In most police departments, the officers provide their own equipment with a few exceptions. The uniform, belt, sometimes the personal firearm, etc are bought by the officer. An automatic AR15 rifle is most, if not all, of the time purchased by the department. Obviously the car is not supplied by the officer although in some Southern states they let the officer take it home and use it as their personal vehicle. The reason for that is then it gives the appearance of more police on duty and the vehicles last longer when the officer has it all the time as their own POV.

The reason behind the officer providing for his own equipment is because the equipment then lasts longer when its officer owned. The department will usually provide a stipend to the officer which will reimburse them for at least some of the equipment. If the department owned all of the equipment then it wouldnt last as long. The equipment would then be used and abused. Costs would soar.

The typical officer spends thousands of dollars buying their own equipment.

That is an off topic part of this thread but I wanted to set the record straight on that issue for those concerned.
 
Probably not but I left a little wiggle room in the event I was wrong. There are quite a few people out there with automatic rifles who managed to get all the paperwork through the powers that be. I think its possible although improbable that officers may own their own automatic weapons.
 
Anyone know off-hand how many tens of thousands of dollars a transferrable select-fire AR rifle runs these days? I will say definitively, with no evidence to support it, that there are no police running their own transferrable AR's in the line of duty. Maybe if one's also an SOT (I assume police can also be SOT's), or something, they might be rocking a post-sample of theirs.

TCB
 
As I have stated before, the entire process needs much greater scrutiny from a legal standpoint, and much more stringent guidelines must be adopted and adhered to.
Click to expand...
Quite frankly, this is all I've ever wanted. I specifically object to police agencies acquiring new, more powerful, weapons and tactics, without there being a pairing with new checks on that authority amongst the populace. Without that pairing, we have just been witness to a shifting of the power balance between the people and the enforcers. Our whole system of governance is based upon the idea that we should seek to prevent that exact situation and maintain the balance at all costs. It was a given that by the time those costs became too great, the whole system would have crashed out into despotism already and the issue would be moot. See the founders' expectation of our nation failing several decades after independence; it was assumed we would not remain prosperous enough to maintain something as costly as liberty.

No knock raids would be fine if there were a publicly-accountable independent body charged with ensuring they could not be abused by discouraging their use as much as possible. That would relegate this tactic to situations where it is truly the only acceptable option for the specific circumstance. Sadly, we see too often that when we establish "special bodies" for determining when a controversial act is acceptable, they find common motive with those they regulate and turn into a mere rubber stamp.

TCB
 
It isn't a good thing, but it's necessary.

Police are being ambushed by nutjobs with high-capacity semi-autos and body armor, public ranges are full of sniper wannabees, and AR15 and AK variants sell like hotcakes, with a public that is hooked on mind- and mood-altering drugs, violent entertainment, and anti-establishment mindset.

They are reactive, not proactive. Overused, yes, but try getting a kid with a Corvette to drive the Geo Metro to the grocery store.
 
Police are being ambushed by nutjobs with high-capacity semi-autos and body armor, public ranges are full of sniper wannabees, and AR15 and AK variants sell like hotcakes, with a public that is hooked on mind- and mood-altering drugs, violent entertainment, and anti-establishment mindset.

They are reactive, not proactive. Overused, yes, but try getting a kid with a Corvette to drive the Geo Metro to the grocery store.
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious...but do tell about the problem with nutjobs attacking police officers with high-capacity semi auto rifles (you seem to imply rifles). Color me cynical, but I think we'd be hearing more about such incidents in the nightly news were they actually happening; FBI statistics of miniscule rifle use in crimes notwithstanding. As far as sniper-operators with military rifles on the range, and people hooked on mind altering drugs and subversive culture; would you be describing citizen shooters, the police, or both? Anti-establishment mood does not generally proliferate when the current one is serving peoples' needs effectively.

I do agree a full-auto P90 would probably be more tempting to use as a matter of course compared with a Remington 870 and sidearm. At least in my town, it would appear the check-out procedures for the MGs are onerous enough that I've never actually seen any of our fleet of FNH wonders.

TCB
 
Color me cynical, but I think we'd be hearing more about such incidents in the nightly news were they actually happening
Click to expand...
I agree. Not only would we be hearing about it, it would dominate the headlines. Such incidents would be a PR jackpot for the gun-control lobby.

There have been incidents, but they're somewhat isolated. That said, given the somewhat recent proliferation of so-called assault weapons in the civilian market, it can happen.
 
To be honest, the same could be said for this whole notion of police needing to be equipped in expectation of encountering more than a couple isolated shooters at any incident response (major justification for things like armored vehicles and automatic weapons is they allow police to withstand multiple independent threats on-scene if needed, though these almost never bear out outside of full-blown organized terrorist attacks --for which our military's infrequent involvement would be wholly justified)

TCB
 
Police are being ambushed by nutjobs with high-capacity semi-autos and body armor, public ranges are full of sniper wannabees, and AR15 and AK variants sell like hotcakes, with a public that is hooked on mind- and mood-altering drugs, violent entertainment, and anti-establishment mindset.
Click to expand...

Really? Only a couple come to mind. LA bank robbery and the FBI rolling stake out in Miami.
Please elaborate with reports.
Maybe the SWAT teams need Bradley Fighting Vehicles then?
 
Sadly, I'm sure some unit somewhere does already :rolleyes:. A cursory Google search brings up "only" 6-wheeled Soviet-looking APVS, no Bradley's, though.

TCB
 
--for which our military's infrequent involvement would be wholly justified)
Click to expand...
So during one of these events, you want the "bad guys" to have free reign until such time as they can be determined to be foreign (as our military can't be used in a domestic police function as per Posse Comitatus) and then for the possibly hours it would take for a sufficiently trained ground unit to fly from whereever they may be based, trucked on site, get up to speed on the event including formulating a plan, and then enact that plan?

Of course, that does no good at all when it's the People's Liberation Army of Hackensack.
 
--for which our military's infrequent involvement would be wholly justified)
Click to expand...

No matter how infrequent would you also be willing to grant the military the immunity from our domestic laws they would have to have to operate as an effective military.

I am thinking this would require training and many other things that are probably not doable. Can you imagine the political outcry were they to even start. There is a wisdom in the military not operating on domestic soil.

As to the original OP, this is troubling in some regards for reasons already discussed. I am also thinking there are probably some areas where these vehicals are easier to justify such as very high crime areas, maybe some other areas for different reasons. The departments and elected persons in these departments who make these decisions still have to answer to the voter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top