The continuing militarization of the police starting to gain press attention

[KyJim]

I don't have anything against police having hand-me-down military equipment like M-16s or the unarmored Humvee mentioned above. I also think it is a good idea to have police tactically trained (SWAT). My concern is the utilization of SWAT or other "tactical" methods when it is unnecessary to do so. We've had a couple of recent threads about this so I won't go into detail. However, I think we need to place ourselves in an officer's shoes -- I know I would rather err on the side of being over aggressive rather than being unsafe.

[johnwilliamson062]

would rather err on the side of being over aggressive rather than being unsafe.

The problem in your statement is that as the police aggression climbs citizen safety falls. There is a balance that must be kept and I think many departments seem to disregard that need.

I am much more worried about the expansion of no-knock warrants than HMMVs and a few M16s.
As I alluded to in my post I think many of these departments jump at "free" without considering the real added costs. I see Dayton PD driving their MRAV around quite frequently. I know what they paid for it to be converted and I can guess at its gas mileage. I am sure they have fabricated a dozen emergencies a month where they need the thing, but really they are just throwing tax payer money down the tube.

I think there may also be a difference between those veterans seekeing employment as civilian law enforcement officers now and in the past. It is my impression that most in the past were simply veterans looking for jobs. I was acquainted with several MPs who joined the military in order to be trained to be police officers. Their MP training was mixed with infantry training. Some were employed by the campus police force. I wasn't always sure they were able to separate their rolls as infantryman, MPs, and civilian law enforcement officers. I wouldn't be surprised if blurring the lines continues now that they have probably left the military. I haven't kept in touch with any of them to know for sure though.

[Madcap_Magician]

This is more a matter of training than equipment.

Your local PD gets a HMMWV surplused from DOD? So what? You should be happy that they got it, since it means they're not using local tax dollars to buy the Ford Explorer or ATVs that they would have used for the same thing.

Obviously there are limits. I can even understand why a large agency would want surplus aircraft- I don't know about the ATF case the OP mentioned, but just because surplused spotter/light attack aircraft are acquired and said aircraft have weapons pylons doesn't mean they're going to be strafing gun owners in the streets. Or even ever be armed. Just that they had weapons mounts when they were acquired.

If there was any evidence that the ATF was planning on arming those aircraft, that would be totally different. But the Bronco is a long-loiter time light aircraft that was designed for aerial spotting and surveillance, so I can see Border Patrol or DNR or someone using them.

I admit that next to the IRS and TSA, ATF is the third to last agency I would trust with, well, anything, and that if they could find a way to misuse it, I'm sure it would happen.

The real issue is the overapplication of SWAT tactics. That is relatively rare, but it does happen and is indicative of the need for better oversight and command decision making in some departments, but not, I think, an indictment of law enforcement as a whole.

[spacemanspiff]

What is a battle computer?

Computer.....Computer.....Machine that processes logic....ROBOTS!
therefore battle computer=terminators!

Apologies but I just don't see this "militarization" as being a bad thing.

The civilian police are increasingly being manned by ex-military who go to the gun as a first line of defense instead of the last. They use their deadly force as the first line of defense when they are equipped with less deadly equipment at their disposal.

I think this opinion is an insult to those who have served in any branch of the military.

[dajowi]

Another aspect is that the failure of police to act decisively at the Texas Tower...

It's almost never mentioned that scores of civilians returned fire on Charles Whitman using their privately owned rifles and pistols possibly preventing further bloodshed.

It seems with the media's help, law enforcement tends to look upon the armed citizen as a liability, not an asset.

[csmsss]

There's an issue here that's perhaps being overlooked. When Uncle Sugar provides equipment to a police agency, it's not a gift. There are always conditions and requirements attached. Yet, we never really hear what these conditions and requirements are. What is it our local LE agencies are agreeing to that they never share with us? What obligations have they made that we will only learn when that day comes when the feebs come back to hold them to it?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A Sniper in the Tower: The Charles Whitman Murders by Gary M. Lavergne (Mar 1, 1997)

Makes it pretty clear that civilian fire suppressed Whitman.

Active Shooter Events and Response by John P. Blair, Terry Nichols, David Burns and John R. Curnutt (Jun 12, 2013)

Mentions it also but it doesn't have a big description of the incident.

[Levant]

The civilian police are increasingly being manned by ex-military who go to the gun as a first line of defense instead of the last. They use their deadly force as the first line of defense when they are equipped with less deadly equipment at their disposal. Remember when the Washington, DC police they shot a man in a wheelchair who wouldn't drop a knife which was taped to his hand making it impossible for him to drop it? C'est la vie.

And we're supposed to believe that these shoot-first mentality cops are going to stand by the Constitution in case of a government gun grab. They're just like us. Except that Law Enforcement Officers are the armed enforcement branch of the government. That is their primary role - even ahead of revenue generation.

[Levant]

However, I think we need to place ourselves in an officer's shoes -- I know I would rather err on the side of being over aggressive rather than being unsafe.

Really? The only way for a policeman to be safe is to kill other folks first? Because that's what over-aggressive means. Better a few innocents get killed than to harm a policeman?

There are those who believe that the police are an elite class of knight warriors but I'm not one of them. I don't think a cop should get shot at any more than anyone else should get shot at. But I don't think the rest of us should be any less safe or protected than cops.

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by Levant

And we're supposed to believe that these shoot-first mentality cops are going to stand by the Constitution in case of a government gun grab. They're just like us. Except that Law Enforcement Officers are the armed enforcement branch of the government. That is their primary role - even ahead of revenue generation.

Maybe you don't know the police officers that I do. Not a single police officer that I know would help to enforce a gun grab, they would all quit before being forced into that position. And in addition to that, there are plenty of higher ranking LEO's that took a stand against possible government action against our second amendment rights.

[Levant]

When asked why LPD needed a Humvee, Carey said it’s “one more step to become more responsive.” As local law enforcement is often the first line of defense, he feels it will help the department better fulfill that role. The Humvee in its ruggedness can traverse territory that other LPD vehicles cannot. This particular vehicle is not armored, though he said he’s trying to obtain another one that is.
Eventually, Carey said he’d like to convert a Humvee into a tactical ambulance to extract wounded individuals from tight situations.

So this Humvee might not be armored but they are trying to get one that is - because... well, you know... all the shootouts that happen in Lander, Wyoming.

And the tactical ambulance... Again, all those shootouts and dangerous extractions that happen in Lander.

These are cops watching way too many movies.

The Humvee isn’t the only piece of gear LPD is getting through this program. Last week, LPD received weapons parts, pouches, containers, two laptops, three Nikon cameras with lenses (valued at $4,500 each) and an iPad. Coming this week are 12 rugged laptops (valued at $4,000 a piece), rifle scopes and and $8,000 computer server.
Carey said the cameras will be used in evidence collection and the iPad will be used by him in the office. The rugged laptops are heavy duty for field use.

The mobile device, the iPad, will be used at the office. Then it's just a toy. They got a bunch of toys.

He called the paperwork process to get the gear difficult, though because everything is “free, free, free,” it’s worth it.

Free, free, free. After all, it's only tax money. That didn't cost anyone anything. Free, free, free.

I am so disgusted it makes my stomach hurt.

[Levant]

Maybe you don't know the police officers that I do. Not a single police officer that I know would help to enforce a gun grab, they would all quit before being forced into that position. And in addition to that, there are plenty of higher ranking LEO's that took a stand against possible government action against our second amendment rights.

I don't want to turn this into what might be labeled a cop-bashing thread so let me just say that yes, you are right. There are plenty like you describe. But there are plenty like I describe. You can google either side of the equation yourself if you want the specifics.

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by Levant

I don't want to turn this into what might be labeled a cop-bashing thread so let me just say that yes, you are right. There are plenty like you describe. But there are plenty like I describe. You can google either side of the equation yourself if you want the specifics.

That is certainly fair enough. I guess I am just optimistic sometimes... But as always, prepare for the worst.

[Mike38]

Your local PD gets a HMMWV surplused from DOD? So what? You should be happy that they got it, since it means they're not using local tax dollars to buy the Ford Explorer or ATVs that they would have used for the same thing.

A point, but…..put fuel in that HMMWV for a year and you could probably buy a new ATV.

Does a city PD like Chicago need a HMMWV. Maybe. But the town nearest me, population 5800 has one. Why, I don’t know. Worse thing that happens here is an occasional DUI or a bar fight.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Just an idea, and I know most will disagree...

What do the anti-gun groups always state? The 'cops' are out gunned.

So what about the militarization of the police? If I were anti-gun it would be a huge wet dream. How? Lets get the gun owners against the cops then let the public (who aren't as involved as those on TFL) decide who should be out gunned. Most would err on the side of the police. So what happens then?

Due to the support of folks who dislike police, the police get restricted, and then there is a claim of "Oh, the police are outgunned" then the public is restricted, then there is a backlash of "oh but the police can have this" that's restricted then. Afterwards another cry of the police are out gunned, and more restrictions, etc.

Even the claim of males between "X" and "Y" age are considered the militia. Then we put an exception for police, and then people wonder why police, which are comprised generally of males age "X" to "Y" are restricted, so lets restrict others...

The more I debate this idea in my mind, the more it sounds like a wet dream for the anti-gunners. Why? They can grab tons of gun owners by saying"bad police" all the while tricking them in to more restrictions. Its straight from the anti-gunners play book. How? Divide and conquer.

It doesn't stop at just firearms. One could also make the same argument that people don't need a 1 ton pickup but instead need a 1/2 ton instead, or maybe a prius, cause if a huge SUV is bad for LE it must be bad for the public.

[teeroux]

My term for military field laptops. You have seen them, I'm sure.

Companies just make rugged laptops and military and police just buy them cause they suit their need.

You should have just gone ahead and called them Assault Laptops.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by KyJim

However, I think we need to place ourselves in an officer's shoes -- I know I would rather err on the side of being over aggressive rather than being unsafe.

The problem here is that police officers are paid to keep US safe, not to keep themselves safe. They are paid to enforce laws, not to make up laws or to violate citizens' rights in the holy name of "I just want to go home at the end of my shift."

Originally Posted by spacemanspiff

I think this opinion is an insult to those who have served in any branch of the military.

I don't think so, and I'm a Vietnam veteran. I think it's 100 percent true. Too many police today think of themselves as shock troops rather than as peace officers. Other posters have already commented on the proliferation of no-knock, dynamic entry warrant "services." That's a perfect example, because a majority of them do not need to be smash-and-grab entries. The intent of a warrant is that a court gives the police permission to enter. Absent some compelling reason to smash down the door at oh-dark-thirty and hogtie the occupants in their beds before they can wake up and react, what ever happened to the concept of knocking on the door and allowing the occupant to read the warrant and say either, "Okay, you can come in" ... OR "Well, this is a pretty piece of paper, but it says here 123 SOUTH Main street, and we're standing at 123 NORTH Main Street."

Every year there are numerous incidents of law-abiding people being detained, shot, and even killed in the course of dynamic entry warrant "servives" at wrong addresses. That, alone, is reason to be calling a halt to the use of such tactics.

Another aspect is that the failure of police to act decisively at the Texas Tower...

Were any of you alive when the Texas tower incident went down? I was. I wasn't there, but I remember it. What ... exactly ... could the police have done more "decisively" to end the incident faster? The tower was the tallest structure for miles in any direction. Whitman, to use a military term, "held the high ground." Whether those on the ground providing suppressive fire were cops, civilians, or military doesn't make any difference. Whitman was in a position that made it almost impossible to hit him. Fire from below was for suppression only, not for effect, and it worked. More cops and fewer private citizens would not have changed the dynamic at all.

It might have been possible to put a sniper up in a helicopter -- but the helicopter would have been vulnerable to sniping by Whitman, too. So what else could they have done? Called in a Huey and told the door gunner to cut loose with the Ma Deuce?

[Aguila Blanca]

Your local PD gets a HMMWV surplused from DOD? So what? You should be happy that they got it, since it means they're not using local tax dollars to buy the Ford Explorer or ATVs that they would have used for the same thing.

I few months back I did a citizens' police academy in a nearby town. They have one of these surplus HumVees. It sits parked in a tin warehouse approximately 360 days out of the year. It gets used so infrequently that they have the batteries hooked up to charger maintainers.

Meanwhile, the department has a half dozen or more Explorers that are used every day for routine patrol. Especially now that Ford has dropped the Crown Vic, in this corner of the world more and more local PDs are replacing worn-out Crown Vics with 4WD Explorers as their standard patrol vehicles.

[Madcap_Magician]

I think some posters in this thread may not understand that there are already checks in place on warrant service. I agree that nightcap no-knock warrants are extremely dangerous and pose an increased risk to innocent people, but in order to get one, you have to justify the need in the warrant application to a judge. Obviously this does not stop all the problems that can happen with nightcap and no-knock warrants, but I just want it to be clear that it isn't like police officers can just decide that they're going to serve a no-knock on their own initiative (absent legally established exigent circumstances).

The problems with nightcaps and no-knocks are those of human error and improper application of established legal process or failure to have effective best-practice policies in place, not a sign that police should never be allowed to use them.

[csmsss]

It might have been possible to put a sniper up in a helicopter -- but the helicopter would have been vulnerable to sniping by Whitman, too. So what else could they have done? Called in a Huey and told the door gunner to cut loose with the Ma Deuce?

Not to mention that in 1966 helicopters were far from being as ubiquitous as they are today. I'll bet there were very, very few available for law enforcement use.

And I for one wouldn't want to be the guy in a bouncing, unstable helicopter trying to take Charles Whitman, an excellent shot in a position of excellent cover who likely would have an easier shot at me than I would at him.

[Conn. Trooper]

I few months back I did a citizens' police academy in a nearby town. They have one of these surplus HumVees. It sits parked in a tin warehouse approximately 360 days out of the year. It gets used so infrequently that they have the batteries hooked up to charger maintainers.

Meanwhile, the department has a half dozen or more Explorers that are used every day for routine patrol. Especially now that Ford has dropped the Crown Vic, in this corner of the world more and more local PDs are replacing worn-out Crown Vics with 4WD Explorers as their standard patrol vehicles.

Never mind, PM sent.

[MikeGoob]

Will they ever just 'tone it down' on their own? If they have budget to buy all the toys, eventually they HAVE to use them...

[KyJim]

Really? The only way for a policeman to be safe is to kill other folks first? Because that's what over-aggressive means. Better a few innocents get killed than to harm a policeman?

You got that from my suggestion that we look at it from the point of an officer? According to you then, everything up to killing someone is not over aggressive, just normal police work.

Where's my truncheon? I've got some bones to break now that I know that's not being over-aggressive.

The problem here is that police officers are paid to keep US safe, not to keep themselves safe. They are paid to enforce laws, not to make up laws or to violate citizens' rights in the holy name of "I just want to go home at the end of my shift."

I'm not talking about breaking laws or placing someone else at risk.I'm talking about the officer who makes a traffic stop and has his hand near his gun as he approaches. I'm talking about an officer who, when handcuffing someone he's known for years, still handcuffs they guy's hands behind his back. A few years ago in my state, a rural sheriff arrested someone he had known for years and handcuffed his hands in front. Even sitting in the back seat, the guy somehow got the sheriff's gun and shot and killed him.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by KyJim

I'm not talking about breaking laws or placing someone else at risk.I'm talking about the officer who makes a traffic stop and has his hand near his gun as he approaches. I'm talking about an officer who, when handcuffing someone he's known for years, still handcuffs they guy's hands behind his back. A few years ago in my state, a rural sheriff arrested someone he had known for years and handcuffed his hands in front. Even sitting in the back seat, the guy somehow got the sheriff's gun and shot and killed him.

Neither of those examples even approaches militarization or over-aggressiveness, and I think you're really smart enough to know that.

[Psychedelic Bang]

The martial law in Boston after the marathon bombing was incredibly strange.

I see the world like this: (I am sure many will disagree)

I haven't been on the forums in years, I stumbled on this thread researching an opinion piece, that I am in the process of writing, that argues for the legalization of all drugs. So, "go figure."

It is plain sight obvious that much of this police arms race since 2001 has been in response to, "the war on terror." What may not be so obvious is that much of the police arms race leading up to 2001 has been in response to, "the war on drugs."

We should end both.