The continuing militarization of the police starting to gain press attention

[KyJim]

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

Maybe, but I also know that understanding why someone is over-aggressive is not the same thing as condoning it and certainly not the same thing as killing someone (not your post, I know).

[FireForged]

If the police are not controlled by, answer to or act under the auspices of the US Military.. it really isn't militarization. Police forces have always been quasi-military organizations but that doesn't make them military.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Police forces have always been quasi-military organizations but that doesn't make them military.

I VERY much disagree.

I'm "only" 70 years old, and I remember all three cops from the town where I grew up. The two patrol officers were addressed by first name -- only. The chief was treated with the respect due his office -- we put "Chief" in front of his first name when addressing him.

I won't go into all the various incidents in which all three of them displayed a very un-military-like approach to policing. There are far too many. Just one example may suffice: When I was a junior (IIRC) in high school, I got whacked in the eye in gym class and had to wear a patch for a couple of weeks. I had my driver's license and normally drove myself to school, but depth perception isn't so great with only one functional eye, so during those two weeks my parents wouldn't allow me to drive. My father worked, so my mother drove me and my younger brother to school and picked us up.

Came the day I had to go to the eye doctor for a progress check. Folks still declined to allow me to drive (I still had the patch), but scheduling made it impossible for my parents to pick me up at the doc's. My father dropped me off on his way to work, but we had a problem getting me back to town from the "big city."

I don't remember (maybe I never knew) how the police chief got wind of the problem, but he volunteered that he had to be in court that morning, so if I didn't mind waiting at the doc's office, he (the chief) would pick me up and deliver me to the high school. So that's what happened.

I'm pretty certain that sort of thing would not happen today in any city or town in the state where I grew up. There are probably some places in middle America where such a Sheriff Andy approach might be encountered ... but not many. Today they'd hope I might try to drive with the eye patch so they could nab me for unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. "Just to teach 'em a lesson," of course.

[jimpeel]

Okay. Being the thread parent on this I have sat back long enough to the point that I will be nominated for troll status if I don't respond to what has been stated throughout this thread.

It seems that most of the respondents are in agreement that the militarization is out of control.

On armored vehicles, one need only go to youtube and search on "swat armored vehicle" to see video after video of these things in action or being lauded as the end-all, be-all for the protection of the populace.

So let me respond to some of those who have posted things with which I either agree or disagree.

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

I would also think back to the 20's and 30's when cops carried Thompsons and BAR's.

While what you say is quite true, those firearms were available to everyone over the counter or through the mail. The police having them was simply normal for the time.

Originally Posted by Vanya

I do think, as well, that the influx of surplus military equipment encourages this mindset: if you have the toys, you're going to want to play with them.

True of all things new and exciting. The problem with these new and exciting things is that they are being employed against the citizenry. At what point does this start to become a posse comitatus question?

Originally Posted by iraiam

People were forcibly removed from their homes so they could be searched during the door to door crap, clear constitutional violations being flatly ignored by the media, government and most of the populace.

This is the epitome of safety over liberty. We all know the Benjamin Franklin quote so there is no reason to repeat it here.

Originally Posted by Vanya

I think it's no coincidence that the backlash against this trend is coming at the same time as a major shift in public opinion against other post-9/11 excesses such as the behavior of the NSA, the use of drones against countries with which the US is nominally at peace, etc.

BINGO! Has anyone here spoken to anyone who watched the progression in Germany pre WWII? I actually have a customer who was at one of the speeches that Hitler gave and he says "I knew then he was full of s---." The problem is that he says he is seeing it again.

Originally Posted by Kevin Rohrer

Don't equate the federal government with the 'police'.

Clinton called for a federal police force and so has Obama. That line could become blurred very quickly. Note:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
-- Barack Obama

Originally Posted by spacemanspiff

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

The problem is that there are so many examples of the shoot first ask later mentality. Think back to the police who shot up two vehicles because they thought they were Christopher Dorner. Those weren't warning shots. The occupants were not even ordered from their vehicles before the police opened fire upon them.

Originally Posted by Levant

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.

I believe that many people are opposed to the elevation of police to near deity status. Kill a cop, go to the gas chamber. Kill my wife, you'll be out in less than ten years. Why is his life more sacrosanct than hers?

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

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 have no problem with officers wanting to remain safe. The problem I have is the part about making up violations. The latest is when people try filming the police in action they arrest them for "obstruction of justice" or "obstructing an officer in the performance of their duties". Numerous courts have sided with the videographers that there is no obstruction yet this keeps being used as a foil to their being filmed. The newest is "The camera/phone might be a gun." What is they are trying to hide?

Originally Posted by Psychedelic Bang

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."

DING, DING, DING ...We have a winner!

This goes back to the point made earlier where the anti-firearms propaganda screamed "The police are outgunned!" That was a war on drugs mantra. It is now used as a mantra for the war on terror.

Through all of this, let us remember one thing clearly and that is Sir Robert Peel's "Peelian Principles":

“The Peelian Principles”

These nine basic principles are often referred to as “The Peelian Principles.” Upon close examination of each of the Peelian principles, not only are direct connections to policing in today's world apparent, but often the nine principles are cited as the basic foundation for current law enforcement organizations and community policing throughout the world.

Many law enforcement agencies currently quote the Peelian Principles on their community websites as their own principles.


Sir Robert Peel 1788 - 1850
“The Founder of Modern Policing”

Peelian Principle 1 - “The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.”

Peelian Principle 2 - “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”

Peelian Principle 3 - “Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.”

Peelian Principle 4 - “The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.”

Peelian Principle 5 - “Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.”

Peelian Principle 6 - “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”

Peelian Principle 7 - “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Peelian Principle 8 - “Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.”

Peelian Principle 9 - “The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.”

[johnwilliamson062]

If the police are not controlled by, answer to or act under the auspices of the US Military.. it really isn't militarization.

I hope you realize the fallacy here. No one said they are being incorporated into the US military. What I think everyone on the "militarization" argument is saying is that local and state organizations are being converted into military organizations that remain more or less under local and state control. A local judge signs the local warrant to do a no-knock warrant on a local house full well knowing local LEOs will be charging in unannounced with more firepower and defensive equipment than most fire teams. Maybe more than a squad. My rural county doesn't need a ten man military organization at its disposal.
When the military raided residence in Mexico they wouldn't even try to enter. They would just surround the house and unload on it. Bullets would be going all over the neighborhood. We aren't close to there yet, but we are definitely headed in that direction. Flash bangs often cause permanent injuries and have caused some deaths. Police obviously have no problem using them without confirming the inhabitants identity or giving them a chance to surrender. What happens when they throw one of these flash bangs on top of a sleeping child? What about next to a child who picks it up? There is a problem in that.

I have discussed no knock warrants with my local Sheriff. He agrees there is a serious problem in their over use and said they do less than five a year. One the year I talked to him. Almost exclusively drug raids and they use surveillance on the property before hand to confirm inhabitants. Basing one of these off of info from a CI without doing any legwork is incredibly lazy and unprofessional.

Luckily, it seems Obama is finally going to let some steam out of the war on drugs with sentencing revisions. I am hoping that curbs a great deal of this, but as things get tighter I know local LEA are going to be searching for money. Confiscated drug money is about as easy as it gets.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JimPeel

I have no problem with officers wanting to remain safe.

I have no problem with police officers wanting to remain safe. Anyone who doesn't want to be safe is probably insane. But ... police officers enter a profession that, by definition, will have occasions when they (the officers) are NOT safe. It's when they choose to trade the safety of those they are sworn "to serve and protect" in order to preserve their own safety that I have a problem.

"I just want to go home at the end of my shift" is not a valid excuse for abuses of authority or for excessive use of force.

[Wyoredman]

^
...and, a police officer can find another line of work ANYTIME the job becomes too dangerous for him/her! There are choices we all make in life, career being one of the most important. Choosing to become a law man is a noble choice, but it is still a choice. Too use that choice as an excuse for excessive force doesn't hold water with me. Some may have a different opinion, that is fine.

It really bothers me when police call the citizens they work for "civilians", implying that cops are not also "civilians". The military is the military, the rest of us are "civilians".

[johnwilliamson062]

Statistically speaking, police are nowhere near the top for dangerous jobs. They are actually around the middle.

[seeker_two]

http://www.policeproducts.com/protec...et-pr-864.html

Now, why would a police department need this....unless they already owned a M249? And why would a police department need a belt-fed machine gun in the first place?....

[motorhead0922]

Originally Posted by jimpeel

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
-- Barack Obama

Hmmm. Seems to me that would be the very militia mentioned in 2A, whose rights shall not be infringed. Thus completely eliminating the need for the police to have Humvees, etc.

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by motorhead0922

Hmmm. Seems to me that would be the very militia mentioned in 2A, whose rights shall not be infringed. Thus completely eliminating the need for the police to have Humvees, etc.

Our second amendment rights and the police having humvees are not mutually exclusive. I am perfectly fine with the police having humvees, so long as they do not use them to infringe on my rights.

[Hiker 1]

Here in my very low-crime college town, we had a SWAT call out last week that involved 15 units and a Bearcat armored vehicle for a guy with...a knife. He had threatened his roommates with it and they took off and called the cops.

There is no way this was a justified use of force and tax-payer funds. If you think it does, I don't know what to tell you.

[Hiker 1]

I am perfectly fine with the police having humvees, so long as they do not use them to infringe on my rights.

You should ponder your statement a while.

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by Hiker 1

I am perfectly fine with the police having humvees, so long as they do not use them to infringe on my rights.

You should ponder your statement a while.

I have. What I am saying is that it is not the humvees that cause the loss of my rights, it is simply the police department's use of them. They could do it with any other vehicle that they'd like and the result would be the same.

That is like blaming the gun for killing someone...

[Conn. Trooper]

You guys realize that Humvees are just a big diesel truck right? They are not tanks. Most are not armored. Would we care if the newspapers read "Police get hand me down diesel Suburban from DOD"? I don't think anybody would care.

[Revoltella]

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.

That's what they say when they aren't being asked to do it. Wait until their paycheck and pensions are on the line.

Remember, it's all good, as long as they get to go home safely at night.

The militarization of the police goes beyond the equipment, the BDUs, body armor etc. it's the "us vs them" mentality. Referring to the people they serve as "civilians". Well, they are supposedly civilians too.

[Revoltella]

The problem is that there are so many examples of the shoot first ask later mentality. Think back to the police who shot up two vehicles because they thought they were Christopher Dorner. Those weren't warning shots. The occupants were not even ordered from their vehicles before the police opened fire upon them.

Let's not forget at least one of those vehicles was the wrong brand, the wrong color and had two Asian women inside that looked so much like a large black guy to the officers, they pumped about 100 rounds into it.

The only commonality to the vehicle they were searching for was that it was a pick up truck.

[Double Naught Spy]

You guys realize that Humvees are just a big diesel truck right? They are not tanks. Most are not armored. Would we care if the newspapers read "Police get hand me down diesel Suburban from DOD"? I don't think anybody would care.

If the vehicles were painted black, then they would be more scary and the media and the conspiracy folks would take notice. Yep, they are only trucks, but because they are symbolic of something we don't like, we make a big deal of them. We liked it and still like it that Eisenhower militarized the US roadway system. So we don't complain about that.

The only problem I have with the cops having hummers is that they have a pretty notorious maintenance and repair history that results in sort of being saddled with an albatross around one's neck.

What I don't get is that when the fire departments get these, folks don't complain about the militarization of the fire department!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...=1380#imgdii=_

Clinton called for a federal police force and so has Obama. That line could become blurred very quickly.

You mean like when a Republican President, Bush, pushed for and gets something like the Department of Homeland Security? How about Reagan's push to upgrade policing with military materials and training for the War on Drugs? You can't call out Democratic presidents and poison the well without revealing the fact that it isn't just a Democrat issue. Both sides have contributed to this and it doesn't matter if you think one has been worse than the other.

[Revoltella]

Both sides have contributed to this and it doesn't matter if you think one has been worse than the other.

You're right. They both stink on ice.

[johnwilliamson062]

I am with 00Spy on the issue of many pieces of equipment. They aren't necessarily military, but they are extremely expensive. The base may be free, but refit is atrocious and almost all these things get terrible mileage and have other maintenance concerns.
My guess is the refit of that ?fire hummer? was over $100,000 dollars.
The militarization comes in when the locals have to substantiate the equipment. The only way to do that is use it when it isn't needed and give people military training(in most cases).
It is all political smoke and mirrors to substantiate military equipment replacement. I hate it when my local politicians start talking about "free" stuff from the federal government. I hate it even more when all the citizens around me start smiling and thanking them for getting it.

[Fishing_Cabin]

My guess is the refit of that ?fire hummer? was over $100,000 dollars.

I would say around 125k, since a vfd on the other side of town has a H1 (civilian hummer) brush truck. Plus they had to redo the bed on it, because no one there listened to others suggestions about weight transfer, and placement of the water tank (behind rear axle), so that was more cost. They wanted to get a free one from the military to outfit but found out their insurance carrier would not cover it, so they spent around 75k for a new H1. Total cost around 200k. Compare that to a basic 1 ton 4wd pickup truck price new (say 20k on state contract price?), and about 15k for a basic skid unit, then maybe 2k for a bar light, siren, so say 37k. A big amount of difference in cash between the two.

When dealing with a municipality though, they will generally have the ability to press in to service most anything they desire, since most are self insured, or are in a "league of municipalities" self insurance group

To me an important question is, how much oversight am I willing to endure? Because I know the more oversight of government, the more it will wind out costing me, as well as it will creep in to my life in other ways as well.

[5thShock]

Equipment isn't the danger. The Weltanschauung is the danger. Anything that's not us is the enemy. If they come to believe that then we're all in a war we did not start.

[44 AMP]

You may say that the police have not been militarized, but considering they have military weapons, military uniforms, military vehicles, and short of calling in air strikes or artillery, use military tactics, I see it as a distinction with very little difference.

[Levant]

If the police are not controlled by, answer to or act under the auspices of the US Military.. it really isn't militarization. Police forces have always been quasi-military organizations but that doesn't make them military.

I don't understand how you get that. Just what would you call what they are becoming if it is not militarized?

The law prevented the federal government from using troops to control US citizens so the federal government created the FBI outside of the defense department. There's nothing definitive that says only the defense department is military.

From M-W.com:

Definition of MILITARY

1
a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war
b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2
a : performed or made by armed forces
b : supported by armed force
3
: of or relating to the army

Our police are an armed force. That makes them military.

Also making them military is the war on drugs in which they have been for 40 years.

Also from M-W.com:

ar·my noun \ˈär-mē\
1
a : a large organized body of armed personnel trained for war especially on land
b : a unit capable of independent action and consisting usually of a headquarters, two or more corps, and auxiliary troops

There is the Army and then there are armies. The police are local, state, or federal armies. The only thing the police are not is part of the Department of Defense... Or are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnBIGlEma0Q

[csmsss]

You guys realize that Humvees are just a big diesel truck right? They are not tanks. Most are not armored. Would we care if the newspapers read "Police get hand me down diesel Suburban from DOD"? I don't think anybody would care.

I think you're completely missing the forest for the trees here. The issue with Humvees isn't so much their capability as the fact that many/most Americans understand them to be instruments of war and thus they are used for intimidation purposes, not to provide any particular capability that can't easily be gotten another way.

In my opinion that's the core motivation behind this militarization craze - the desire to intimidate the plain jane citizenry into cowering before them. And I for one am offended by and scornful of any "law enforcement" agency or officer that sees that as a legitimate goal. The purpose of law enforcement is in the service of the citizenry, not its subjugation.