The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old June 27, 2014, 05:40 PM   #26
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,430
Quote:
As for the police they have to be armed to meet the threat. Like for example North Hollywood Shootout bank Of America. Most would argue that civilians should be allowed assault rifles etc, and openly carry them in the street can you then go on to say the police should not.
We will have to agree to disagree.
And while "some" May want to open carry semi auto rifles, I'd bet a meal of bangers and mash that most in the US would prefer concealed carry and personal restraint on open carry.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 05:25 AM   #27
johnelmore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 260
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.

The police in Britain have their own special problems. They had the IRA and now it looks like they have these Jihadists. One incident they murdered a man in the street with knives. Those guys need a military posture to keep order as they have been in a quasi state of war for a while. 1 out of 4 Jihadists are British. They even have recruitment videos with British telling us to come on down. If I was an officer in Britain I would certainly keep all this in mind.
johnelmore is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 05:55 AM   #28
foxytwo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2010
Posts: 186
Swat teams are a bad idea. If a police dept has one they use it because they have to justify the cost and training. To many innocent people are hurt or killed.
foxytwo is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 07:33 AM   #29
johnelmore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 260
The SWAT team is like a fire hose or a fire extinguisher. Its a tool used for a specific purpose and sometimes goes unused. The problem with fire hoses and extinguishers is when they are used in the wrong manner just like SWAT teams. So the problem is not SWAT teams but the specific use of such teams and the top line management behind them.

What makes Americans troubled about the issues is when there is a lack of accountability. The majority of police chiefs and police unions will defend their officers no matter the situation and even when obvious mistakes are made. They should just discipline the officers involved and then develop specific training to prevent future incidents while issuing a statement that they were wrong. Instead, what you get is the chief telling us they did nothing wrong.

Accidents happen. Someone rearended my car the other day. It wasnt a problem until the other guy got out and started telling me he did nothing wrong...
johnelmore is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 08:26 AM   #30
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,430
Foxy two noted
Quote:
Swat teams are a bad idea. If a police dept has one they use it because they have to justify the cost and training. To many innocent people are hurt or killed.
While there are some entry teams that have the "kill them all and let God sort it out" in the Middle East (where the focus is on killing the BG not saving the hostage), I would tend to say some SWAT attitudes or procedures are bad. LA, ABQ and a few others seem to propagate the bad stereotype.
I had the chance as a civilian contractor to go with Phoenix SWAT team on a drug bust, including the briefing. In a follow up discussion with the commander explained the goal was to get not kill the BG,unless absolutely necessary. He was proud they had NOT shot anyone in the last year, but made it clear that was a sign of strength not weakness.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 10:50 AM   #31
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Today, they are getting to the level where they could handle a substantial threat and, at least in my mind, its comforting to know its there.
Comforting...until one day you find out that the police consider YOU to be the substantial threat.
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 02:08 PM   #32
johnelmore
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2013
Posts: 260
There is some reason why they shoot first in the Middle East. First, they are in the middle of a quasi-war and such things happen in war zones. Second, a minority of players is responsible for the majority of deaths in the Middle East. The FBI had examined 160 defused and exploded ieds. It was determined 44 of those IEDs were created by 1 person. So if they are able to kill the right people then it saves lives of many others. Lastly, with the justice system in the Middle East the way it is some captured people ultimately are let go. Thus the more aggressive policy over there. Those conditions, however, are not present here.

If the police considered myself a threat it would only be by mistake. In the case of such a substantial mistake there would be a substantial lawsuit.
johnelmore is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 04:34 PM   #33
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnelmore
If the police considered myself a threat it would only be by mistake. In the case of such a substantial mistake there would be a substantial lawsuit.
Lawsuit won't help you much if it's filed by your widow ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 04:55 PM   #34
jeager106
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2006
Location: N.E. Oh.
Posts: 527
QUOTE:
Quote:
The police and the stations have being militarised here in the UK for years, I don't see it as a problem.

No disrespect intended, but I believe most Yanks point to a related reason 240 years ago as a reason to revolt. He who has the guns, makes the rules, a lesson many European countries have found out the hard way, ala Tyrants vs. unarmed civilians = no bueno. __________________


Well those living in the U.K. wouldn't see it as a problem now would they?
I haven't a clue what the Brits are taught about the colonization of the world at that time but I know what I was taught.
NO disrespect to our Brit cousins either. We are STILL related in many ways and allies for always. And I'm glad of it.
We'd only be to glad to bail out the U.K. from aggressive nieghbors.
And the Brits would do the same for us.
But to the point.
I served 22.5 years in a mid sized city of mixed cultures & ethinicities, a crime rate way over the top. It was in fact in the top 10 violent crime cities in Ohio.
The year I was disabled in the line we hit #1.......again.
I had a great mentor in the form of an older black Sgt. who recognized that I might, someday, make a good police officer. IF I could be taught some things.,
1) You don't have to arrest everyone.
2) Treat all people as well as they will let you.
3) Respect ALL varieties of humans......he took me to all black parties & pig roasts & I was pall bearer at his mothers funeral. The ONLY white guy there.

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

Last edited by Vanya; June 29, 2014 at 09:10 AM. Reason: nazis
jeager106 is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 07:22 PM   #35
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,430
It's actually a little different than that in the Middle East, John.
It is more a religious / act of faith issue, and your or my or their dying for a cause gets you Heavenly rewards as a martyr.
Saudi Air Defense really will fire multiple missiles at an air intruder (and anyone friend/foe) in the area, if initial Air Force contact is not able to splash the intruder, and they really have / will "let God sort it out". Other organizations have similar policies.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 08:05 PM   #36
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,181
it's an interesting dynamic to be sure. on one hand, they are an arm of the government and the possibility of a police state is always there. however, they are not an arm of the federal government which means that they don't have to obey and executive orders should SHTF, like for instance, leave their jurisdiction to protect another region, or fight for any particular side in a civil war.

if you would have asked me a couple years ago I would have said it was a bad thing but believe it or not I had an epiphany while playing a video game. in this video game a fictitious military/terrorist agency attacks a major population center and because the local police agencies don't have as much training, armor, or weaponry at their disposal they are essentially annihilated while trying to defend the city. as unrealistic as such a scenario may sound, it is a very real threat and should any part of the US be attacked, it would take national guard several hours if not days to mobilize and establish a strategy, during which it is up to the police to protect and serve. in that case, I would welcome some training, full autos, and armored vehicles.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the crap people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
Bean counters told me I couldn't fire a man for being in a wheelchair, did it anyway. Ramps are expensive.-Cave Johnson.
tahunua001 is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 11:23 PM   #37
Ruger480
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2013
Location: Central Iowa
Posts: 547
Quote:
it is a very real threat and should any part of the US be attacked...
I should like to think that all my SHTF neighbors would manage to hold on until the NG arrived.
Ruger480 is offline  
Old June 28, 2014, 11:28 PM   #38
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
I agree with the ACLU.

In every country I've been in where there is no real difference between the police and the military it is bad.

Remember, in many countries, having the police show up is often not good for you.

I hope we keep the police CIVILIAN and let the military fight wars overseas.

Seems to work.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 12:38 AM   #39
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,361
A tad off topic. I recall many years ago a naval officer did a survey of the Marines at Camp Pendelton. He ask if you were given an order to go out in the community and collect all their firearms, would you obey the order? The majority of the junior enlisted and officers said yes. the senior enlisted and middle grade officers had very unkind words about the order and anyone that gave such an order. What happened in the aftermath of Katrina I think would give any LEO a pause to consider such an order.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 05:49 AM   #40
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,292
Quote:
Military tactics have no place in police work. (there are special circumstances that require special responses--I was Lt. SWAT when hurt)
Militarization of police is awful.
That all depends on what the police are coming up against. If the police are coming up against people with automatic weapons, then the police have to be armed with the firearms and equipment to stop the threat. The police are not being deliberately targeted in America so would not need the same weapons and equipment that they need here.
manta49 is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 08:15 AM   #41
Hunter Customs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2005
Location: Osborn, Missouri
Posts: 1,812
Quote:
There is much, much, more but most important thing he taught me is that police were PART OF not APART FROM the community in which they SERVE!
Serve.
Military tactics have no place in police work. (there are special circumstances that require special responses--I was Lt. SWAT when hurt)
Militarization of police is awful.
After I left police work & healed up I learned the new Chief was one of those that aspired to the position as a working retirement.
The fellows, the young & new, [...]wear sap gloves, jump boots, carry unauthorized AR's in the squad cars, make an arrest over anything for any excuse & "resisting arrest" is a way too common charge.
Citizen complaints & law suits are ordinary these days.
Glad I'm not there. I EARNED the respect of the ethinic communities, had many friends that looked to me for help & some risked thier butts to help me.
Community policing is spot on correct.
Police might be held to a higher standard than citizens but ordinary citizens they are.
jeager106, I totally agree with what you've said above.
I've known many fine officers such as yourself but sadly they are being replaced with officers that have a [different] mindset.

[snip]

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

Best Regards
Bob Hunter
www.huntercustoms.com

Last edited by Vanya; June 29, 2014 at 09:09 AM. Reason: nazi stuff.
Hunter Customs is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 08:47 AM   #42
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,469
Guess I'm old school.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study the works of Sir Edward Peel and O.W. Wilson. I believe they have the idea what works and what doesn't.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 08:56 AM   #43
Jim567
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2014
Location: NE FL
Posts: 244
In 1964 our little 10 man police in force in CT had a WWII DUK.

Why?

I am uncomfortable with the police force having military vehicles.

Same with walking around in military fatigues --

I see that a lot with LE in NFla.

As an army veteran it rubs me the wrong way.

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

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

Last edited by Jim567; June 29, 2014 at 09:03 AM.
Jim567 is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 09:07 AM   #44
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,937
No more Nazi references, please.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 11:18 AM   #45
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
In 1964 our little 10 man police in force in CT had a WWII DUK.

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And just what's up with the ninja masks, anyway?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 11:23 AM   #46
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
In 1964 our little 10 man police in force in CT had a WWII DUK.

Why?

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

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

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

Last edited by JimDandy; June 29, 2014 at 11:28 AM.
JimDandy is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 01:58 PM   #47
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,178
The gear and technology and vehicles of militarization concern me, but I'm more worried about the psychological aspects. It's the thinking, the mindset, the executive function behind the deployment and use of personnel and gear, that is ultimately where the problem exists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the "warrior mindset" something to be admired or shunned in the absence of a counterbalancing aspect of calm and restraint (like that which many eastern philosophies instruct)? Why is it that martial arts schools emphasize restraint and disengagement until defensive violence becomes unavoidable, while Law Enforcement seems to go in the opposite direction?
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 01:58 PM   #48
NickySantoro
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2008
Posts: 217
The Militarization of Police...A good thing?

No.
NickySantoro is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 02:40 PM   #49
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,292
The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout. I think they would change their view very fast. SWAT are OK but you could be dead before they arrive. It depends what the police are coming up against what weapons and vehicle they need to be equipped with. Some places are more dangerous than others, I know here they would it would depend what area they were going into would dictate what equipment they would take with them. What would be appropriate for one area could be seen as over the top for another. Here the vehicle below for example would only be used in certain areas.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg article-2257481-16C469C5000005DC-620_634x376.jpg (83.9 KB, 16 views)
manta49 is offline  
Old June 29, 2014, 04:49 PM   #50
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
The people that think the police should not be militarized, would they feel the same if they were the ones coming up against individuals like in the bank of America shootout.
That's not especially common. Not common enough to base all but the most extreme response on for certain. However, the question that should be asked... what's your alternative plan? How do you propose maintaining the safety of officers doing their duty while removing the extra armor and protection afforded by their equipment and tactics?
JimDandy is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14760 seconds with 8 queries