The Militarization of the Police

I feel that a bit of the problem is slf-control or lack thereof. LEOs used to deal with mostly out of control situations. They were reactive and came only when called. IOW, daddy and his razor strop dealt with most discipline issues. The public respected LEOs and really did NOT want to interact negatively with a LEO. The rosewood baton was used to solve most problems. The LEOs were part of the community and well known. Neighbourhoods were foot beats and conversation was common. Automobiles and a lack of control and absence of discipline at home has changed the situation. There is often no father, razor strops have vanished and social workers tell us that everyone is worthy. The day of the deadline has gone. In the day if certain groups were found past a imaginary line, LEOs were encouraged to break their skulls or shoot to kill. Social workers felt this was harmful to the community. The idea of training and education was pushed as a solution to stopping LEO abuses of the citizenry. Military style training, standards and uniforms were proposed and adopted. This was all before WW1. The training standards were basically brought about by Theodore Roosevelt. NYPD style training spread quickly and the military model was standardized nationwide including the use of ranks. IOWs, nothing new under the sun.
 
Anybody paying attention can see how brutal the police have become. I watched an episode of COPS that made me sick.

Cops in general were far more "brutal" in the 60's and 70's than they are now. No doubt about it.
 
Police tactics today are based on the idea of "overwhelming force" such that the BG sees he's woefully outnumbered, outflanked and outclassed and quits resisting. Mind you, your average weed buyer will probably not resist much if it's 3:1 odds. On the other hand, some guys are so high, stupid or full of themselves that they just don't get it -- i.e. Rodney King et al -- even when outnumbered 8:1.

Us v. Them
If I had to pin down when this attitude started, I'd have to say it began in earnest in the late 60's. Especially as the Vietnam war protests got out of hand, drug-using "hippies" seemed everywhere and some groups were publicly arming themselves "against the facist police", such as the Black Panthers, SDS and others. Even then, most cops looked at themselves as standing in front of "Mom & Pop America" against the bad influences of these identifiable groups. It was US (cops, decent folks, people with short hair) against THEM (Hippies, under 25's, long-hairs, radical groups, commie-pinko-anarchists). It was pretty easy for cops to see a person and know that he was going to have a tough time or an easy time.

So, what happened?
As some of these folks aged, they dropped the radical notions to put food on the table for a family, planned or unplanned. Many started careers and became -*gasp*- just like their parents. Well, almost.

Too many continued to use drugs and/or hold some radical ideas. With disposable income and many with a desire for instant gratification cocaine became a popular drug in the 80s. Too expensive for the poor it was glamorized in many movies as something the rich and affluent do for kicks, including including in Crocodile Dundee. Then someone discovered crack-cocaine which could be made on the cheap. As the trade intensified we ended up with gang wars reminescent of the 1920's bootleggers (and how did we solve that problem boys & girls?].

But the children of those affluent "recreational drug" using parents have grown up with attitudes much more relaxed about drugs than their grandparents. Fewer of these people attend church (just ask any minister, pastor or priest) and their children weren't exposed to religion except in passing.

Narrowing The Focus
During this time the police would see the disintegration of families. No longer were the drug users readily identifiable. Nor were those hostile to the police or traditional living easily identified by their clothes or hair. Now it was Mom and Dad swearing like sailors at the police who obviously had done something illegal to arrest little Johnny for dealing weed. Or it was the driver of a Jaguar in an expensive Brooks Brothers suit calling the officer a facist jack-booted thug.

The "us" narrowed down to those in uniforms entrusted to enforce the laws.

Also during this time there was a subtle shift in the lexicon. Educational establishments changed from teaching Law Enforcement or Police Studies to Administration of Justice. Obstensively to provide a "well rounded" education of the whole system. Living through this transition was -- enlightening.

Obtaining a 2 year degree in Law Enforcement Studies that changed to the new title in time for the degree marked a turning point, I think. The instructors up through the early 70's were often retired officers and legal types.

Dealings with the public, we were taught, were to be done in a professional manner without resorting to bully threats or tactics. They taught a low-key approach to suspects, lulling them instead of alerting them, when possible. Once you ratchet up the contact to interrogation or use of force the person will never see you the same way. Thus, what one wit called the "Adam-12" school. (Personally I preferred the "Bumper Morgan" school, but that's another story.)

Having attended more recent training classes (some 15 years later) the attitudes have changed significantly. Many officers consider police work "just a job" and nothing more. Not a calling, not a noble pursuit, not an honorable career. The idea of being a part of the community and helping set the standards of the community are gone. For too many it's a numbers game -- how many arrests (good or bad) they've made. How many cars they've searched. How many raids they've been on. Their authority is final and you'll hear them claim they will rationalize their actions after-the-fact to justify a stop, search or other action. These are the ones who advocate getting IDs from victims or reporting parties and running them for wants/warrants.

Fortunately for us many police officers are tough but compassionate people who do the job because it's worthwhile, not simply for the paycheck.

For those of you in the law enforcement field who consider it more than a job, who respect the rights of citizens and look out for the welfare of our communities we all owe you a debt of gratitude, respect and support in your efforts.

For those who consider it "just a job", who have little respect for citizens rights or no sympathy for victims, do us all a favor and switch careers to something more fitting - like a used car salesman.

Flames privately please.
 
The way that I look at LEO's is that they do have a job to do, they do help in at least getting criminals to court (now, that's another story, our court system) and they (some) still help people who are in need (like the Deputy helped my Mom when she broke down).

But, as Bill said, many just look at it as a job, a power trip (my words), and a competition to see how many arrests, good or bad, they can make.

Also, most of the police forces are more interested in politics then in serving the community. That is why (imho) there is such a HUGE difference between Police LEO's and Deputy (Sheriff) LEO's. Police chiefs are appointed while Sheriff's are elected. Police chiefs serve the one who appoints them (usually the mayor of the town/city) and the Sheriff serves the people who elected them.

So don't get me wrong, I am not a person that has pure hate for any form of authority, mostly just distrust. I think (my opinion) that LEO's have become sloppy, lazy, and abusive. And this behavior is reinforced when they are allowed to get away with it by the courts.

A little bit of respect, on both sides, can go along way. It helps to form the trust that the LEO's need so they can get civilian help when needed, and it helps the civilian to trust the LEO's when needed.

Dressing up as ninja's, scaring little old ladies into heart failure, breaking down the door of the wrong address/house and shooting unarmed 12 year olds in the back, don't really go over well with the public whom the LEO's are supposed to help and protect.

You watch on TV or read in your local paper how the LEO's (police chief) whines about how the public doesn't give them any respect, that the public is distrustful of the LEO's and how they need more money to operate. Yet after all this whining they still have the nerve to blame, the Public, and never look to see what the reason really is, Them and the way they operate. If people want to pay to be abused, they will do so with one of them S&M people.

I know that there will be, on both sides, people that will have a hatered for LEO's and LEO's toward the Public but they are few (at least on the Public side). But if this continues then there will be more and more, on both sides, and this isn't good for anyone.

Wayne
 
Bill, there is another problem area that you didn't identify. It's not that you didn't do well in your post, as you most certainly did!

But there is another area that everyone seems to ignore. Perhaps because we just don't see the forest for the trees. This area I'm thinking of has to do with actual criminal law.

Many are too young to remember, but it used to be that Felons were a rare breed. Law back then with written with a mind to the severity of the crime in relation to a victim. Nowadays, many, many laws are written just to criminalize trivial things. No victim needed... Or at least, that's the way I see it.

There have been many studies on this aspect of our society, unfortunately most of these types of studies never see widespread media coverage. A consequence that most aren't aware of the change. Between the number of new federal felony's and state felony's that have been codified, I find it difficult to think about going through my daily routine without breaking at least one of them. What's worse, I probably don't even know I'm breaking some law or another!

This aspect of law making, that is, making everything that offends someone a crime, has a consequence. Without knowing it, we have trivialized crime itself. Every time some "bleeding heart" group screams, "There oughta be a law," our legislators obediently pass a law. We have long passed the point where the ordinary Joe can tell what's unlawful and what's not. The natural human reaction to this is to ignore things that are ignorable.

On the Law Enforcement side of things, this causes selective enforcement, as the Department heads are pressured to enforce the newest threat de jure. Granted that this is an oversimplification, but it is still part of the problem.
 
But, as Bill said, many just look at it as a job, a power trip (my words), and a competition to see how many arrests, good or bad, they can make.

What's wrong with looking at it as just a just a job? I think you're less likely to have problems with the "just a job" cop than you are with the "noble calling" cop.
 
In a quick note before I head off to work.

One of the reasons people have a problem is bad attitudes on BOTH sides. Some see the police as a gestapo-esque force. Some cops thing they are part of the SAS or SEALs, or Deltas, the attitudes sometimes absolutely kill me. Last time I got pulled over ( I deserved it), the guy was going on and on about how much smarter he is than me, I knew of him in HS he graduated a year before me. I know his brother, I know he didnt do well in HS other than football, how he's a cop I have no idea. He also made a point about how he gets to carry a gun and i dont, like its a medal of greatness. It really annoyed me, but I remember it's his job to correct my speeding errors so I just let it slip. I also tol his co-worker about it.
 
What's wrong with looking at it as just a just a job? I think you're less likely to have problems with the "just a job" cop than you are with the "noble calling" cop.

Well, personally speaking, I don't consider what I do for a living "just a job" but as providing a service to the students of the training center. It gives me a better attitude and a feeling that I'm doing something for others, even if it is just keyboarding, filing, and making appointments for them to see the Administrator.

I had the same attitude while in the Military, when I worked at Burger King, and even when I worked as a Janitor.

I've noticed that most people when what they do is "just a job" have bad attitudes, could care less about the people that they work with or for, and generally just don't give a hoot as long as they get that paycheck every two weeks.

Wayne
 
I agree with the idea that the Police have become much more "militaristic"
in the last fifteen or twenty years. I don't begrudge police their use of body armor or high-powered weapons, but I question their use of face masks.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees me the right to confront my accuser
(6th Amendment) and I feel their use of the masks may be a way to avoid
such a confrontation. Not only that, I think it is cowardly of a police officer to wear a mask during an arrest.

Light me up all you want to, but I'm a hard core conservative who believes the
police in this country have been given a little too much leeway to act as
"enforcers of the law", as opposed to the "protect and serve" motto we
see so often.

Walter
 
Why have police got bigger guns and become more militarized? Because they deal with more violent and aggessive type of people today than they have in the past. Now I am not saying that the tatics they deploy aren't sometimes used in situations that don't warrant it but it has come from lessons learned when they have had to deal with a aggressor that out gunned them and had them at the disadvantage.

Why should the police have better weaponry than the average citizen? First let me preface that I am not against ordinary citizen being allowed to own class III weapons, but if a BG kills his family and baracades himself in a home with high powered and high capacity guns they are not going to call the average citizen to deal with him, they are calling the police.
 
It really isn't about "us vs. them" and more about going home to your family in tact. Thoughts?
Oh my lord what a crock...

you got it backwards...and guess what, it wasn't the citizenry that turned it into an "us v. them" thing.
 
While we sit here and laugh at wanna be commando's that come onto the board every once in awhile, we can't laugh too much when we realize that there are wanna be commanders that are out there, paid by us through our taxes, in uniform.
=========================================================
Boy oh boy,, don't it seem like that's the truth!
 
Before I get to the militarization question, here's one basic observation: like every other group, police come in at least three varieties - the good, the average, and the bad.

Where I live, there is a distinct difference in LE agencies regarding visible militarization. HP uniforms are dressy - slacks, longsleeve shirts, ties, etc. SO uniforms are more casual - slacks, shortsleeve shirts, no ties, etc. PD uniforms run the gamut from dressy to ninja - combat boots, black BDUs, armor that looks suitable for RoboCop, and a belt festooned with every cop gizmo know to man.

The vast majority of LEOs I see interacting with citizens do so very professionally. The rare times that I see LEOs acting like a****, they are nearly always dressed like ninjas and heavily equipped enough to do combat patrols in Baghdad. I have drawn my conclusions and I suspect that most other people have too.
 
Im truly sorry if our "Gestapo" tactics piss you off. The next time you get stopped, make sure and tell the officer how you feel. I am sure you will get a sticker, balloon, and one of the "Barney the Friendly Stormtrooper" T-shorts we hand out.

Or -- you could participate in government. Get involved with the city council or whatever your local equivalent is. Try to get a citizen review committee started (brass at local law enforcement just loves :rolleyes: citizen involvement!), and bring up issues like courtesy as part of the review process. Make it an issue that they will have no choice but to care about. Just don't back down when the typical political crap starts over it. Try very hard to get this committee involved with budgeting. You would be surprised how tones change when you start taking away there allowance.

Study local politics and vote based on your research, not what some talking head on TV tells you.

Try to consider many issues when you make your voting decision. Understand that there is no perfect answer and look for the best solution for everyone, not just yourself, then actively support those that fit what you see as correct. In this case, the next time that the Sherrife asks for more money - don't vote for it.

Also if during your daily life you encounter LE for some unfortunate reason and there is some problem with them, consider filing a beef with their department. However - truly consider the reason you are filing it, if there is some legitimate problem - they assaulted you, confiscated some property with no legal justification, kept you from your lawful right of way unreasonably, something along those lines, or were you just angry that they caught you doing 12+MPH over the speed limit and they would not let you go without a warning....

If your anger is about the worthlessness of issuing speeding tickets (I think they are a crock) then contact the legislature and speak your mind.

During the entire process remember that you are one person with one point of view and this country is not designed to serve the will, needs, and wishes of just one person. Recognize that you may be wrong and that for the most part we (people in general) just get up go to work and come home for dinner every day. Sometimes things go wrong, we deal with it if possible get up and do it all over again the next day.


Long post, sorry about that. My point is, if the local State Troopers, Police, Deputies, or whatever are not behaving in a nice way - do something about it. Call the department and ask to explain your point of view to somebody. You might just get in touch with somebody that is willing to listen and do something about it. If they won't listen or are just blowing smoke for your benefit, go over there heads - contact the city or county or state and put your complaint in writing, deliver it registered return reciept and follow up on it.

Finally - if you find that none of this is working to your satisfaction. Stay inside your home and wait for judgement day.
 
I've been doing some research on the net (the net is a very dangerous thing indeed) and after reading and taking notes I've come to the conclusion that in some fields of work, maybe more tests and evaluations should be taken.

And I don't just mean the LEO field but day care centers, teachers, employees in the day care centers, fighter pilots, etc..

The most important field imho are politicians but that is another post :D.

I see that about 1% of bad gives 99% a bad name. Unfortunatly this gives the people about 90% distrust and then you have the extreme folks that will hate no matter what.

I, for one, do wish that the mistakes wouldn't happen, that an extra 1% of work was put into play to ensure that a mistake wouldn't happen.

You have to view some of the things from our eyes also, when we read about raids on the wrong home and people die needlessly. Or when women and children are killed, on national tv (this was feds, not LEO's that I know of) over a tax and allegations of child abuse. It really tags at the heart and sours the stomach.

It's true (from what I can see but I may have overlooked some stuff) that the criminals today are more high tech., better armed, and are more of a threat to the LEO's then they were before. Yet we, the People, are constantly disarmed and jailed for handling it ourselves (muggings, robbery, assault, etc.). If the government would get off our backs then I think that an LEO's job would become somewhat easier due to the problem would hopefully been taken care of before they show.

From research it seems like the LEO's are being crushed just like us when it comes to government. Being forced to do things that they know are unconstutional (like we "obey" gun laws, they have to "carry out" the laws). I forgot who said it here (the board) but it is the "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

Wayne
 
Thoughout the history of our country there have always been "notorious" bad guys better armed than the authorities that deal with them;
  • Indians in the mid/late 1800's were obtaining some repeating rifles and they attacked in "gangs" against smaller groups of calvary armed with single shot Sharps rifles.
  • Armed gangs robbing coaches, trains and citizens usually outgunned local law enforcement
  • In the early 20th century, we had notorious types like Bonnie & Clyde robbing banks, using .45's, BARs and Thompsons against revolver & shotgun toting police.

And so it goes, even today.

I don't mind the body armor and high tech hardware (although the citizenry should be able to have the same weapons) as much as I mind the idea of masked officers, non-creative thinking and the "assault team" concept for too many situations.

It'd be better, IMHO, if we fostered a "do the right thing" campaign amongst citizens and police. We encourage people to do the right thing when it comes to crime. Report it, stop it or give aid in capturing the BG. We encourage involvement in not only deterrence, but in actively combatting crime when possible. Criminals reduce their activities if they think they'll be caught quickly and especially if they believe there is a good possibility they'll get hurt.

We also should encourage police to make decisions based on "the right thing" principle. One such example would be a no-prosecute recommendation for a convicted child molester who dives into a lake or pool to rescue a drowning child in violation of court orders to avoid unsupervised contact with children.

In my view, it is OUR duty to deter, prevent and stop crime. The police have been given this responsibility by proxy because most of us don't want to do that job ourselves.

A citizen stopping a crime, especially a violent crime - whether by smashing a bottle of wine over the perp's beak or through the use of the Colt Ventilation Technique should not be charged with an offense. Stopping a violent or dangerous criminal from causing harm is never wrong. Though if an offense must be charged I'd suggest something like creating a nusiance, disturbing the peace or some other misdemeanor.
 
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS

By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing" and "On Combat."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so
because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy
things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that
may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,
even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth
dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the
United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive
creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the
murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate
is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans
are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which
means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one
in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are
committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably
less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation:
We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still
remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people
who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme
provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the
pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow
into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue
shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and
someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For
now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves
feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there
who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil
men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget
that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in
denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to
protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy
for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But
what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow
citizens?
What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking
the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the
universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep,
wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes
them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the
world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire
extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids'
schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely
to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the
sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone
coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the
path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is
that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep
dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished
and removed.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative
democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much
rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to
hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough
high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not
have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had
nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT
teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel
those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs
feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded
hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt
differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how
many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a
sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a
funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the
breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a
righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous
battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move
to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After
the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America
said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said,
"Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I
could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a
warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there.
You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but
he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able
to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals
convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious,
predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast
majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped
walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like
big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able
to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be
genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most
people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans
are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the
man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an
operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other
three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone
and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to
the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a
transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business
people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves,
ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible
evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real
sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves.
They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be
whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
 
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay,
but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your
loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If
you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt
you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want
to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious
and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive
in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are
well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt
holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of
religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer
in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your
place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the
break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other
cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I
asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at
a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally
deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen
people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day
if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do
was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the
eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself
after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer
was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and
would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for
"heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective,
or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'
school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can
happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog
quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with
yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there
helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth
when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you
are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at
your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to
terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an
insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it
isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more
unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some
level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of
his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that
the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime.
Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you
walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to
yourself...
"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no
dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees,
a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on
the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the
other.
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America
took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps
toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started
taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that
continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved
ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
 
I've read that story about sheep, sheepdogs and wolves before and find nothing wrong with the concept. When I read it though, I envision some of the sheepdogs I've had contact with. Some are barely recognizable from the sheep. They have long, shaggy coats and hair that hangs over their eyes. Others are slim and wiry, fleet of foot and sharp of fang, a worthy adversary for any wolf. But the shaggy sheepdog does the job too. He protects his flock and chases off the wolves just as well as his fiercer-looking cousins do.
That's much like the armed citizen and the uniformed police officer. Given the opportunity, both can do the job of protecting their flock. The police officer though, is fettered by a multitude of laws and has to watch over many flocks spread out over a wide area. He can't always be counted on to help when help is needed. The citizen though, is also fettered. Not only by laws which protect the bad guys, but by political appointees serving as police chiefs who don't want anyone trespassing on their turf. Those political hacks are the ones who pressure ordinary line officers to come down on the citizen who dares to protect his own flock. Most police officers wouldn't care if a citizen had a mortar tube mounted in the back of a pick-up as long as it wasn't being used offensively.
Nowadays though, we're seeing more LEOs that take a harder line against citizens acting as their own 'sheepdog.' We're told that this new breed of cop is a result of the increased danger LEOs have to face. Yet, year after year, government statistics show that police work is less dangerous than many other less glamorous jobs. Deep-sea fishermen. oil-field workers and farmers generally rank higher on the list of dangerous occupations, yet we're repeatedly told that police work is terribly dangerous.
Well, I'm sure it's getting more dangerous, but I'm left to wonder if this is just another "chicken/egg" question. Would police officers have quieter, less dangerous lives if they took more care to avoid confrontations with citizens? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure we'll never find out. The pendulum is still swinging toward harsher enforcement of ever more restrictive laws. History shows that such tyranny (and that's what it is) eventually begets violent retaliation. This is the way it has always happened and this is the way it will happen again. I'm glad I'll be gone when it does.
 
Last edited:
.02

I poke fun at law enforcement a lot, but it's almost always in good fun (at least for me). Like every other profession, theres good and bad and most are in between. The only time I get bent is when I hear a LEO admitting abuse of authority and making no bones about continuing to do so. Those guys can stick their knightstick where the sun don't shine.

But one thing I have to get in here: Think of what things would be like with no one willing to do the job? It's not that great. It doesn't pay well, it's dangerous, you deal with the lower 5% of society like 90% of the time, and no matter where you go, someone is always giving you ****. These guys are the only thing between the zipperheads of the world and the rest of us. And another thing: when it comes time to take a guy down, you don't pussyfoot around and try to break it to him gently. That could cost you some pain, or even your life.

On the flip side, excessive force is unnecessary, illegal and inexcusable. And, since cops are just ordinary citizens, they have no more power than the rest of us, minus the power of arrest (which we have also, just in a more limited scope). This means no allowance for assault. And no reason for us no to have everything they do (giggle siwtch/gas/tanks) without exception.

If this seems like waffling, well jus leggo my eggo

TX
 
Back
Top