The Militarization of Police...A good thing?

[manta49]

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

The UK a police state , I am not sure were you got that from. Since when was the UK a police state. ? the majority of police are not even armed. As for peaceful enough Americas murder rate is higher than most EU countries including the UK.

[thallub]

The militarization of police is wrong.

US police departments were militarized to fight the "war on drugs". The "war on drugs" is a abject failure that has cost the US very heavily. After fighting the "war on drugs" for 40 years more dope is coming into the US today than ever before. Americans have an insatiable appetite for the stuff.

[BarryLee]

Yes, Police fight the war on drugs, but politicians declared that war. Police have a responsibility to enforce the laws that our elected officials create. If you don’t feel a law is proper blame the politicians not the cops.

[Glockstar .40]

@barrylee thats exactly why I believe the militarization of the police is wrong. the Police are a tool for politicians to use to enforce whatever laws they want to make or wars for that matter.

[motorhead0922]

Why should you get to avoid the NFA when they don't?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to an officer (SWAT team) being issued an M16. I don't know the process for that, but I'm pretty sure they don't have to pay $200 and wait 6 months.

[JimDandy]

I'm also pretty sure it isn't their M-16. I'm pretty sure they don't get to keep it. In most cases I'm even pretty sure they don't get to take it home.

[barnbwt]

*sigh* I wish I could post throughout the day...please bear with me

And why are you worried about a camera collecting public information? Do these cameras you're so worried about see anything you couldn't if you were sitting on top of this car? Does anyone located where these cameras can see have any expectation of privacy? In other words on a busy public street and sidewalk:

Can people force others not to take their picture?

Is it a crime to jot down the license plate of a car parked on the street?

GPS locations? Really? You have some problem with recording the physical location of a patrol car 24/7?

I am concerned because the police have no articulable reason to be conducting reconnaissance on law-abiding citizens, that's why (one of the primary differentiators between a policed state and a Police State). There is an important distinction between monitoring (CC cameras) and tracking (scanning/databasing). Aside from the fact it is wasteful, it sows distrust between police and the community, and for very little benefit (see: ongoing NSA scandals/outrage). There sure are people who can force me not to take pictures of them; the police (and state/fed workers). Also, it is illegal to broadcast police operations to the public at large (I forget if it was a national law or a local one, but it was a case involving a phone app to let 'the crowd' report traffic cop locations, and there was another case of a man tipping off drivers ahead of a speed trap who was also forbidden from doing so). Apparently official public police duties are deserving of extra privacy ("for the protection of those being detained in public," no less, LOL). Once again, "rules for thee, not for me" is a poor way to convince me my police enforcement is deserving of respect, or authority. It teaches me to fear them, though, which as we all know is ultimately counterproductive to police goals.

Allowing police to further scrutinize and investigate you for no cause cannot render you a benefit, and may be used against you rightly or wrongly. There is no reward for being innocent. There is absolutely no reason to submit on this front, even if you feel that providing police with more information is helpful to them (a "pleaser"), because it is not for your benefit. It's not a conspiracy, it's just that it is not collected for your benefit but rather the officers', and therefore not something you should yield for free. You don't have to take a civil rights law class or run Game Theory to figure this out.

Yes, you are calling attention to equipment, and then implying to outright claiming they universally reveal specific mindsets. I.e. that police have some piece of equipment- armor, surveillance, automatic weapons- that reveals their mindset includes the desire to act like a rights crushing police state organization bent on genocide, political prisoners, and totalitarianism.

Okay, basic American civics here; when you present authorities with the means to power, they will seize them. When that power comes without accountability, it will tend toward abuse. Allowing police to simultaneously expand their capabilities through equipment purchases as well as their budget resources to maintain them is a recipe for abuse; can't see it ending any other way. That's not to say it happens immediately, but it is like fighting gravity or thermodynamics. It will be easier for the police force to test their legal authority and enforcement capabilities, therefore at large the police force will inevitably do so. Making a black hole more massive will not reduce its attraction. Forget 'need' for a moment since it is distracting; for what purpose would a police force want militaristic equipment, weapons, and tactics? What would they likely tend toward given these elements?

Poster 1: "Why do the police need body armor, military-style assault rifles, and armored Humvees? Nobody needs that stuff! If they get military-style equipment, they'll start acting like soldiers!"

That SAME poster will find no cognitive dissonance in posting in another thread:

Poster 1: "Michael Bloomberg has no right to tell me what kind of rifle I need RAWR the difference between an AR-15 and a Mini-14 is only cosmetic anyway military-style assault rifle is a made-up term by rabid Communist antigunners RAAAAAAAAGE my AK-47 has never killed anybody my modern sporting rifles don't make me some frothing mercenary commando killer WHIIIINE."

Poster Me: I know my weapons will not be used offensively against human beings. I know my weapons were paid for with my own money. I know my personal choices in guns have zero impact on the community at large. I know I reject the concept that anyone should be able to go about in peaceful society with militaristic regalia and weaponry without scorn, though their actions be legally permitted. And that goes double for police, who, besides being 'ordinary civilians' like the rest of us, are not paying for their kit, either.

Will you see armored Humvees on patrol in your neighborhood? I doubt it.

Well, it's already occurring, though I imagine the scale will be limited by the pervasiveness of elected sheriffs who actually have to justify their acquisitions periodically. Dallas bought some type of MRAP recently to serve warrants

Did your local PD get a surplus UH-1? So what? They'll find they don't have the funds or expertise to maintain it, and it'll become a relatively minor example of government waste and inefficiency, not the first step to the blue-helmeted jackboots going door to door asking for your papers.

Ah, the old "the government is too inept to ever become abusive" argument. Unfortunately, the more boneheaded, wasteful, incompetent an authority, the worse they are about buying jackboots (and using them). Has nothing to do with the UN, either (since they can't really supply their own jackboots at the end of the day, we have little to fear )

I will always argue that if they can have such equipment, so can I. Police have M16's? Fine, but where's mine, without an NFA required?

Let's put aside the "NFA" part, which is a whole other dog's breakfast, and read the phrase; "as readily accessible." Non-LEO's aren't issued guns like police, we buy/own/access them, so the legal differences are great, but the practical differences not so much. Non-LEO's can't get machine guns; the legal ways to do so are so onerous and tenuous as to be a non-issue compared to a department's standard procurement/book keeping procedures that they use to obtain select fire weapons. If the local PD wants to have ready access to machine guns by buying them, I want that added power they have purchased able to be checked by the body public, which means they must be able to readily purchase the same for themselves. Otherwise, the balance of force has measurably shifted towards the authorities without oversight; a dangerous circumstance to leave unattended.

The NFA fee isn't the crucial problem, it is the ban on new fully auto guns.

If we had to pay the 200 bucks and get them - many would jump at the chance.

That's a different issue from the fee.

Very true, but 200$ was incredibly prohibitive in 1934; several months' wages, and the same price as an expensive SMG or more. When inflation rendered the law less burdensome, our benefactors found a way...

When you rent a full auto firearm at a range, do you have to go through the NFA paperwork, and wait in line for months to get the tax stamp to use it?

Believe it or not, f/a rentals will only go up in price, since it is illegal to manufacture new SOT machineguns for the purpose of rental (many unknowingly/flagrantly do so anyway, but at the peril of the ATF)

As to if the wait time [LEO form 5 for machinegun transfer] is different, no clue.

Well, a cursory Google search turned up nothing but Form 1 & 4 wait time results, so I'm guessing the police are not significantly hindered by the regulations so burdensome to mere plebes. As usual.

I'm also pretty sure it isn't their M-16. I'm pretty sure they don't get to keep it. In most cases I'm even pretty sure they don't get to take it home.

We're not talking about what the individual policemanofficer does at home, off the clock, when he's once more "one of us," now are we? I don't think the individual cop dictates no-knock raids or equipment purchases, either.

The UK a police state , I am not sure were you got that from. Since when was the UK a police state. ? the majority of police are not even armed. As for peaceful enough Americas murder rate is higher than most EU countries including the UK.

Perhaps "police state" is too strong a term (perhaps; a society's individual tolerance of politicized or abusive police efforts varies). My point is that the disarmed UK territories require enhanced and omniscient/omnipresent police action precisely because the citizenry ostensibly cannot defend itself. Similar rationale justifies the level of security in Israel. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding that legal self-defense through violence is both unlawful and socially unacceptable in many (all?) of the UK lands. Let's not drag statistical misdirection into this philosophical discussion

Police fight the war on drugs, but politicians declared that war. Police have a responsibility to enforce the laws that our elected officials create.

And when the divided allegiance of police between their communities and their political superiors shifts too far in favor of the latter; you have a Police State (def: police used to further political interests at the expense of the public --quite arguably the case in Jim Crow South, and now the Inner City where Chiefs are solely beholden to mayors)

TCB

"On the unrelated topic- the A-10s being retired and surplused out is a Damn Shame, and one I think we will come to regret when we finally realize that the F-35 cannot do the same thing."
Oh, I'm sure we'll learn the mistake shortly after some brilliant idiot convinces us to try using them instead of attack helicopters. The Damn Shame is none of our perfected-long-ago planes can be remade, since I'll bet the FAA regs have ballooned so much in the interim to declare them "death traps" (despite the new ones not being +40 years old like a growing bulk of our forces' airframes)

[Tom Servo]

I'm also pretty sure it isn't their M-16. I'm pretty sure they don't get to keep it

They don't. The guns are registered to the department and are department property. Officers can bring them home, but the guns do not belong to them. There is no legal way for post-1986 machine guns to be transferred to them.

[Ruger480]

In most cases I'm even pretty sure they don't get to take it home.

Ours take theirs home. We have what's called "rifle teams". My understanding is that it is always in the officers possession. In the event more fire power is needed in a situation, there is no wasting time going to the station first to get your weapon.

[JimDandy]

I'm running out of steam because it's becoming increasingly apparent your bias is against law enforcement in general, not any particular thing they're doing. Amply demonstrated by some sort of double standard on armored Crown Vics, and Armored Humvees, as well as other instances where you've moved the goal posts, for example when you agreed with

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.

vehemently and now object to police doing something on a public street the public actually can do like running a simple camera on license plates.

Believe it or not, f/a rentals will only go up in price, since it is illegal to manufacture new SOT machineguns for the purpose of rental (many unknowingly/flagrantly do so anyway, but at the peril of the ATF)

What does that have to do with my question? My question was: Do you have to apply for and pay for a tax stamp, as well as go through the waiting period to possess one, or to own one? They don't own it, they possess it.

Okay, basic American civics here; when you present authorities with the means to power, they will seize them.

Basic American Civics here, innocent until proven guilty. Preferably by more than a biased circumstantial case based on stereotypes and reruns of The Shield. They've had police helicopters for decades. They've had souped up patrol cars for decades. They've had electronic listening devices and God only knows what else for decades. Your predictions have not come true.

I know my weapons

And you're still missing the cognitive disconnect. We're supposed to take YOUR word for it, and disbelieve every LEO ever It's just more I'm Special, they're not thinking.

And that goes double for police, who, besides being 'ordinary civilians' like the rest of us, are not paying for their kit, either.

So you expect them to buy their kit? Tell us, what do you do for a living? Do you provide all of your work supplies so your employer doesn't have to? How many reams of paper have you brought in for the communal printer? Who paid for the PC on your work desk? When you run the register, who "fronts" your change bank? For that matter, who paid for the register itself?

[Fishing_Cabin]

So you expect them to buy their kit? Tell us, what do you do for a living? Do you provide all of your work supplies so your employer doesn't have to? How many reams of paper have you brought in for the communal printer? Who paid for the PC on your work desk? When you run the register, who "fronts" your change bank? For that matter, who paid for the register itself?

There are many officers out there which supply their own equipment, except vehicle, so I am not sure your argument about police not paying for theirs is accurate. Actually, before you ask, I did purchase my firearms...

[JimDandy]

There are many officers out there which supply their own equipment, except vehicle, so I am not sure your argument about police not paying for theirs is accurate. Actually, before you ask, I did purchase my firearms...

I know of no department that makes officers buy their own ticket books.

Were you required to purchase your own firearms, or just allowed to as an option to whatever issued choice was available? Did you get an allowance or other "extra" pay for providing any of this equipment?

What about your vest/armor?

When required, if it's required, and you go in to qualify with your side arm, who pays for the ammunition?

What is the nature of your department? Federal, State, City, Smaller?

[Glockstar .40]

I have a buddy who works for the D.O.C. and he had to purchase his own firearm. The department told him what was acceptable but he had to purchase it himself.

[barnbwt]

Wow, it's really hard to keep up with all the deflections, btw...

I'm running out of steam because it's becoming increasingly apparent your bias is against law enforcement in general, not any particular thing they're doing.

I'm not biased against law enforcement, but military on my soil masquerading as a police force. I see LEOs who insist on blurring that distinction as antithetical to a free society.

We're supposed to take YOUR word for it, and disbelieve every LEO ever It's just more I'm Special, they're not thinking.

So if neither of us is special, why does one retain the ability to acquire forbidden technology, and permission to use it? You are making some sort of appeal to consensus with your "every LEO ever" line; I'm not sure what your point is. There have been abuses by LEO's and PD's, whereas I have not harmed anyone with my weapons. LEO's and PD's carry their offensive weaponry for the sole purpose of terminating targets (yes, the entry team carries weapons for the purpose of neutralization; they won't use them if they don't have to, but that's what they are being sent in for in the first place), whereas none of mine can be, legally or morally. And not to sound too Objectivist, but at the end of the day, my knowledge of my motives carries more meaning for me than any number of others' perception of them. That won't carry any weight with others, but it does color my beliefs, and those of all individuals.

I know of no department that makes officers buy their own ticket books.

We're not talking about ticket books

Were you required to purchase your own firearms, or just allowed to as an option to whatever issued choice was available? Did you get an allowance or other "extra" pay for providing any of this equipment?

Yes, in fact, the corporation I work for does require me to provide for my own computer, supplies, and air conditioning; otherwise they'd go belly up or fire me for being a drain on their profit. Likewise, police agencies must convince their funding public (or less-accountable federal agencies) that they deserve new or continued resources, based on their needs, goals, and past results. There's been no clear need demonstrated for an armored vehicle, so why are they being requested and purchased? My local PD has a score of P90's for a town of less than 20,000; why? They'll be ditching them for new, more powerful machine guns, soon; again, why? I think we've had like 1 murder a year on average, and less than a hundred armed robberies of any sort. Somehow, the guns are still clapped out after only five years (think about how much 5.7 ammo that takes). Were my department at work so wasteful, we would be quickly pruned.

Somehow, many police seem to believe they are entitled to whatever they feel they need to get their sacred duty completed. No one is entitled to anything; we must all earn it. If we are paying for some shiny new toy for the local PD, it had better be obvious it is a good investment or we have no business, as responsible tax payers, enabling officers' Gear Acquisition Syndrome at our expense.

Just as there are military fetishists who think that that organization deserves respect above all others, and can do no wrong, and requires all it requests, so are there the same for police. Both are organized in this country to do specific jobs, and that's really the practical end of it. Both are dangerous lines of work, but especially in modern times, this contrast is not nearly so great with certain lines of civilian work, or with any citizens' daily risk to life and limb. In times past when service was a near guarantee of violent death, we attributed moral-superiority to the actions of those involved in order to justify the necessary sacrifice. Now that the jobs both tend to be more civilized than they were, there is less a claim to be made of moral superiority above other important priorities and the needs of civilians. We'd be hearing about drone operators 'putting their lives on the line' otherwise.

When required, if it's required, and you go in to qualify with your side arm, who pays for the ammunition?

I typically don't even get paid for the mandatory training I have to occasionally take; suck it up and use my lunch hour. To be honest, in the grand scheme, guns are actually quite cheap, compared to all the Tasers, cuffs, uniforms, radios, cars, etc. officers require far more often, none of which are restricted to them (specific radios, maybe), and none of which are unique to military deployment or tactics.

TCB

[JimDandy]

Yes, in fact, the corporation I work for does require me to provide for my own computer, supplies, and air conditioning

Air conditioning? You have to carry an air conditioner around with you? Or did you have to put it in the window of the office you use in their building, and plug it into your generator filled with your gas?

I'm not biased against law enforcement, but military on my soil masquerading as a police force.

Posse Comitatus says they're not military. Given the option, I'll give them an armored car and a kevlar vest rather than letting them call the National Guard every time Kent State has finals week and kids start protesting.

As for not being biased against law enforcement- Sure you're not. I'm wrong. It's obviously not a law enforcement bias to complain they get Kevlar vests in a job where they just might get shot at on their lunch break for nothing more than someone else who didn't have a bias against law enforcement shot them for being law enforcement.

[Scouse]

Barnbwt:

With regards your remarks about the UK being a police state. I appreciate your rationale for it and we all have put own points of view on this stuff, but those of us who live here find the notion a bit daft, generally speaking. There are many examples of appalling excesses in the actions of the police in the UK, both in exceptional circumstances and in the routine exercise of certain policies (kettling of peaceful political protesters, for example). However, this is true in the US too, and I would argue, far more often involves violent coercion and arbitrary use of force.

There is really very little about the UK that could reasonably make it a police state. I am afraid you are wrong about the legal and social position of violent self defence in the UK. Self defence with force is perfectly legal as long as it can stand up in court as what a "reasonable" person, as decided by a jury, would have felt necessary on the spot, not with the benefit of hindsight. People have shot, beaten, strangled and stabbed to death attackers and walked free as they were defending themselves in the UK. The difference is, it is not legal in this country to keep weapons for the purpose of self defence. If you think that makes the UK automatically a police state, then fair play to you - I may not agree with the law necessarily, but I don't think it makes us a police state.

As for the social acceptability of violence in self defence, I think you would be surprised. Pragmatism reigns.

[Onward Allusion]

Lots of opinions and conjecture but little data from the perspective of the militarized police departments. While I am not in LE, I can say that I have known LEO's and guys in tac teams. The opinions, mentality, & values between the regular patrol officers and TRT/SWAT are as different as night and day.

Most patrol cops that I have run across are under the belief that they are there to keep the peace and to "serve and protect". I kid you not. The mentality of SWAT guys with the cool UAV's , helicopters, & drones are that they are there to stop the threat - aka kill the bad guy. I'm a civi but have taken a couple of long term classes with a couple of departments. It was eye opening.

Militarized police is a really bad thing for civi's mainly because we are not at war or living in an occupied territory. Unfortunately, many of these tac guys are of exactly that mentality. Everyone they run across while they are geared are BG's. EVERYONE. They are in a war.

All this craziness is driven by fear and politicians/authority. The more fear that is instilled into the general population, the more power the politicians and authorities have. To retain power, they drive certain values into their "soldiers" and people. Do not be sheep. Always ask questions.

[johnelmore]

I do look at police rather skeptically at times. There is a movement of people who will always look at the government rather skeptically and the police work for the government. So any use of force is looked at by the public rather skeptically. The fact is though that force wouldnt be used if everyone just decided to cooperate and come quietly. The police in my community have been very helpful in my case. Whenever I felt something untowards was going on I would call them and they handled it to resolution.

There will always be a set of people out there who have very evil and hostile purposes. Its been the case for thousands of years. In order to solve situations you are going to need a group of armed rough and tumble men like the SWAT teams. They may be controversial but they are needed for those extreme situations.

So I dont trust the police fully. Im one of those guys who views the government skeptically and thats my right to do so. However, there can be no argument that we need some heavily armed men for the extreme situations. Events like the Boston bombing should have been handled with a big force to show such things would not be taken lightly.

[Fishing_Cabin]

I know of no department that makes officers buy their own ticket books.

I was more speaking firearms, and basic duty gear (belt, mags, holster) with my comments, since the issue I understood was others have to pay for their firearms. But to answer the question, citation books are still state supplied for the few that actually use them anymore including my department and a few other smaller depts. Others depts use a computer based program, but no MDT's here. Working on getting what other forms I can scanned and able to use my personal laptop.

Were you required to purchase your own firearms, or just allowed to as an option to whatever issued choice was available? Did you get an allowance or other "extra" pay for providing any of this equipment?

What about your vest/armor?

When required, if it's required, and you go in to qualify with your side arm, who pays for the ammunition?

Required at first for handgun, optional now. (actually purchased 2 since first was discontinued) Rifle is optional, but I do supply my own. Supplied my own ammo to qualify for many years, until last couple of years. No practice ammo except for what I supply. Couple of uniforms a year, but due to wear and rips I pick up my own also to keep something decent. No extra pay either. Got a used vest years back that was several years old then. Finally did get a new one (grant) otherwise was going to buy my own if it hadn't happened. Also pay my own tuition, books as well (no reimbursement). Any extra con-ed beyond basics annual stuff is on me as well. Smaller rural town.

[barnbwt]

Originally Posted by Scouse

As for the social acceptability of violence in self defence, I think you would be surprised. Pragmatism reigns.

Thanks for the information; I figured that was the practical reality, but it is certainly not the official line. I assume that much like the US (or anywhere), the excesses are much-magnified in the urban areas (London's camera systems are legendary, for example). As in the US, the peoples' disarmament is exactly the justification used to ever-expand their oversight, all in the name of public safety. I make no pretense of knowing first hand the realities there, just the caricature that filters over to my end, so I do appreciate the personal account of conditions on the ground. Perhaps that territory isn't so far beyond our outreach, after all.

Air conditioning? You have to carry an air conditioner around with you? Or did you have to put it in the window of the office you use in their building, and plug it into your generator filled with your gas?

Not sure what I carry on my person in my duties has to do with anything, but yes, the money I help generate for the corporation does indeed have the A/C systems installed, serviced, and powered . More deflection.

Posse Comitatus says they're not military. Given the option, I'll give them an armored car and a kevlar vest rather than letting them call the National Guard every time Kent State has finals week and kids start protesting.

Posse Comitatus is a legal construct just like those that prevent police abuses; it can be violated or subverted like any other. Allowing the police to gain near-tactical-parity with the military is exactly that. Also, Kent State is an ironic choice of example with regards to official abuse (police or military)

Events like the Boston bombing should have been handled with a big force to show such things would not be taken lightly.

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.

TCB

[Hunter Customs]

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

[Tom Servo]

Events like the Boston bombing should have been handled with a big force to show such things would not be taken lightly.

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.

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.

[ronl]

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.

[Tom Servo]

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.

Considering that "SWAT" in this case refers to "Survival Weapons and Tactics," your assumption might be incorrect. So might the overbroad conclusion.

[ronl]

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.