Are Cops Too Militarized?

Cops may still be civilians, but civilians with military weapons far beyond the requirement for law enforcement.

haymarket said:

When in our history did the American right wing begin the hard turn against law enforcement? At one time American conservatives and support for law enforcement went hand in hand. Now, its obvious that the hate for government that is part and parcel of libertarianism has been extended to law enforcement. When did this devolution happen?

This thread is merely the latest example of it here.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your analysis of the right wing.

For decades I have noticed a split between the left and right when it comes to law enforcement. This division is never about law enforcement in general but instead WHICH law enforcement.

We have local state and federal law enforcement. Based on my own observations left wingers like and support FEDERAL law enforcement while being critical of local law enforcement. Right wingers are the other way around.

Take the examples of Ruby Ridge, Waco and even the recent Cliven Bundy circus, left wing progressives defend the governments action at every turn while conservatives accuse the government of doing wrong. On the other hand whenver there is a controversial shooting or use of force by local cops in any city the conservatives tend totake the side of the police while progressives scream police brutality or whatever.

One also has to remmeber that more and more funding for local police comes from teh federal government now which somemay see as a shifting of loyolty and priorities on the part of the police. The idea of " to protect and serve " begs the question " WHO is being protected and served?" The citizens and people? Or mayeb those passing out the funding which is the federal government embodied by the chief executive.

Both sides need to wake up and realize we have to many laws which why the government keeps justifying more and more law enforcement power.

haymarket said:

The dictionary disagree with you. Every one I can find disagrees with you. Cops are not civilians.

google search definition



from Merriam Webster dictionary




I have provided many more in the past and could do so again for your continued edification and enlightenment.

Click to expand...

Using google search does not make you smarter. Cops are civilians, ask any lawyer (or even any cop) and he/she will tell you because a civilian is anyone who isnt military.

haymarket said:

What militarization of the police? The things discussed int he OP are for the most part keeping up with technology. are you against the police keeping up with technology?

I suspect part of the reliance on more powerful equipment is the slavish campaign to reduce municipal budgets thereby costing police jobs and positions and the difference then has to be made up in equipment rather than bodies. And it was a right wing desire to slash taxes and government that was the impetus for this.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that they need the technology or the bodies truth is they are getting more of both.

Police departments seldom lay people off or cut their size, if they do cut the size of their force it is usually only temporary until more money can be found to hire more.

Besides if a particular municiple region loses population and shrinks in size why do they need as much law enforcement? Some cities have a shrinking population but growing PD and no one can explain the math behind this. Coincidentally the same problem exists with schools some of which I see with a shrinking student population yet ever increasing budget and infrastructure.

We do not need as many police as you might think. Most local regions would be quite satisfied with much smaller forces especially when people simply realize they need to protect themselves from crime because the police cannot and never will be capable of doing so. In fact it is not their job to protect anyone.

Some communities have even done away with law enforcement completely and been just fine as a result or at least no worse off. Before anyone jumps to conclusions I am referring to large municiple areas in modern times. I.E in the 1980s a large suburb of Cincinnati Oh called Colerain Township voted by referendum to abolish and disband their police department. The Township as I said was large with a population into the tens of thousands. The bill was pushed onto referendum because many were sick of the graft and corruption of their PD. When it passed and the police were disbanded nothing happened. Crime did not rise it stayed at the same rate or even declined slightly depending on who you ask. Daily police functions such as traffic enforcement etc. was taken over by the county. It was years before they got around to reforming and reconstituting a new PD.

Obviously we cannot do away with all law enforcement all at once but it would be nice if more departments were axed once in a while just to remind the cops who they are SUPPOSED to serve and that ultimately they need their jobs more than the communities need them.

PoS said:

Using google search does not make you smarter. Cops are civilians, ask any lawyer (or even any cop) and he/she will tell you because a civilian is anyone who isnt military.

Click to expand...

No they are not civilians they are officers of the government.

Therein lies the difference.

True they are not military but you are assuming that there is only military and civilians.

PoS said:

Using google search does not make you smarter. Cops are civilians, ask any lawyer (or even any cop) and he/she will tell you because a civilian is anyone who isnt military.

Click to expand...

Lawyers on this forum tried to explain this to him, he doesn't care about facts.

Soupnazi630 said:

No they are not civilians they are officers of the government.


Therein lies the difference.


True they are not military but you are assuming that there is only military and civilians.

Click to expand...

Source for this misunderstanding?

Ad_Captandum said:

I blame the prevalence of guns in American society. The cops are decking themselves out in heavy-duty military gear because they expect (reasonably) to come under fire at some point. This isn't true in Britain, and thus our police aren't kitted out in military gear, but rather wear high-visibility green jackets so people can approach them for help.

I think this is only a natural instinct -- the police are trying to protect themselves. It's a dangerous job in America, because (incredibly) you let anyone have deadly weapons. I don't begrudge the police their protection, but I do think it's a shame it's come to this.

Click to expand...

Saw thatone coming.

Doesn't hold water becuase guns in America were just as prevelant a century ago or two centuries ago and the police are only beefing up their firepower in recent times.

Lachean said:

Lawyers on this forum tried to explain this to him, he doesn't care about facts.




Source for this misunderstanding?

Click to expand...

It is a fact not a misunderstanding cops are sworn uniformed officers ( hence the term police OFFICER ) of the government.

Soupnazi630 said:

It is a fact not a misunderstanding cops are sworn uniformed officers ( hence the term police OFFICER ) of the government.

Click to expand...

Do you know what the word "source" means?

Please google the term Civil Authority, which is what the military are taught the police are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_authority

"is that apparatus of the state other than its military units that enforces law and order."

Lachean said:

Do you know what the word "source" means?

Click to expand...

Sure now look up the word fact.

Soupnazi630 said:

Sure now look up the word fact.

Click to expand...

I posted a fact, since you're too lazy to look anything up or provide sources when asked to backup your ignorance.

Like I thought, you've got nothing. The police are civilians, they're a civil authority.

haymarket said:

What militarization of the police?

Click to expand...

There are none so blind than those who refuse to see... Everyone but you is aware of the militarization of this civil authority. But since you're such a statist, I'm sure you're loving it.

Here's how I view Haymarket in a police state:

Lachean said:

I posted a fact, since you're too lazy to look anything up or provide sources when asked to backup your ignorance.

Like I thought, you've got nothing. The police are civilians, they're a civil authority.

Click to expand...

You posted no fact tyou posted opinionlook up the difference.

They are sworn uniformed officers of the law. Not military but not civilian either.

haymarket said:

Cops are a para-military organization and have been since professionalized. I have no idea what you are talking about with this "like an occupational army" statement.

Click to expand...

The police used to be called Peace Officers their job was to keep the peace. Now they are called Law Enforcement Officers their job is to ostensibly, enforce the law. Except one thing enforcement of the law isn't their job, it's to keep the peace. Law enforcement is the courts and juries domain. The police have become professional thugs for the most part. The only real difference between them and Guido the made man is the badge.

PirateMk1 said:

The police used to be called Peace Officers their job was to keep the peace. Now they are called Law Enforcement Officers their job is to ostensibly, enforce the law. Except one thing enforcement of the law isn't their job, it's to keep the peace. Law enforcement is the courts and juries domain. The police have become professional thugs for the most part. The only real difference between them and Guido the made man is the badge.

Click to expand...

Mornin' Pirate. Yep.....and #1 Priority - To maintain the established order.

If you would ask this question in my country, if the police was so heavily armed then I would have had said yes. But in the US I do not think that is true. While the use of swat or heavily armed officers has gone a bit too far, if you live in a country where every Tom, Dick, Harry, Susy, Mary or Linda can be armed to the teeth, then you have no sense of real security as an officer.

I can still remember that heavily armed robbers had a 44 minute shootout with the police, if criminals are that heavily armed, it is not strange that the police will want to have, at least a few officers, that are equally if not better armed than the criminals they face.

If the question had been, are militarily armed officers used too often, then I would have voted yes.

Soupnazi630 said:

I disagree with your analysis of the right wing.

For decades I have noticed a split between the left and right when it comes to law enforcement. This division is never about law enforcement in general but instead WHICH law enforcement.

We have local state and federal law enforcement. Based on my own observations left wingers like and support FEDERAL law enforcement while being critical of local law enforcement. Right wingers are the other way around.

Take the examples of Ruby Ridge, Waco and even the recent Cliven Bundy circus, left wing progressives defend the governments action at every turn while conservatives accuse the government of doing wrong. On the other hand whenver there is a controversial shooting or use of force by local cops in any city the conservatives tend totake the side of the police while progressives scream police brutality or whatever.

One also has to remmeber that more and more funding for local police comes from teh federal government now which somemay see as a shifting of loyolty and priorities on the part of the police. The idea of " to protect and serve " begs the question " WHO is being protected and served?" The citizens and people? Or mayeb those passing out the funding which is the federal government embodied by the chief executive.

Both sides need to wake up and realize we have to many laws which why the government keeps justifying more and more law enforcement power.

View attachment 67166673

Click to expand...

You raise some valid points.

Lachean said:

Lawyers on this forum tried to explain this to him, he doesn't care about facts.




Source for this misunderstanding?

Click to expand...

Lawyers citing no US law are irrelevant. Why does every dictionary ever cited state that cops are NOT civilians?

Lachean said:

There are none so blind than those who refuse to see... Everyone but you is aware of the militarization of this civil authority. But since you're such a statist, I'm sure you're loving it.

Here's how I view Haymarket in a police state:

Click to expand...

Making another silly personal attack on me does not negate the issues I raised - mainly that the right wing desire to cut taxes and decrease the size of government has caused a decrease in police officers across the country and this coincides with the increased reliance on technology to make up the difference. Your finger of blame has three more pointing right back at the far right getting the unintended consequences of their own desires.

PoS said:

Using google search does not make you smarter. Cops are civilians, ask any lawyer (or even any cop) and he/she will tell you because a civilian is anyone who isnt military.

Click to expand...

And denying what every dictionary tells us only makes one ignorant.

Peter King said:

If you would ask this question in my country, if the police was so heavily armed then I would have had said yes. But in the US I do not think that is true. While the use of swat or heavily armed officers has gone a bit too far, if you live in a country where every Tom, Dick, Harry, Susy, Mary or Linda can be armed to the teeth, then you have no sense of real security as an officer.

I can still remember that heavily armed robbers had a 44 minute shootout with the police, if criminals are that heavily armed, it is not strange that the police will want to have, at least a few officers, that are equally if not better armed than the criminals they face.

If the question had been, are militarily armed officers used too often, then I would have voted yes.

Click to expand...

We were just as heavily armed with smaller and less heavily armed police for over a century and few problems.

Obviously you view point is wrong

Ad_Captandum said:

I blame the prevalence of guns in American society.

Click to expand...

Malarky.

What all this comes down to is more government power, and more government expansion. The morons in charge, that only care about their own power, made this new organization (DHS) and it gobbled up more and more taxpayer money, 'for the common good' of defending us. All the while the borders are just about wide open and anyone can get in here, yet they do nothing about that. If it was really all about stopping terrorism, what we see would be vastly different than what is currently out there.

SWAT teams should not be breaking down people's doors at 4AM to arrest one person over a drug charge. And then discovering that they've broken into the wrong house and threatened to kill an innocent family. And sometimes they even kill members of that innocent family.

Police shouldn't be attacking American citizens' homes like it was Osama Bin Ladin's compound.

PoS said:

Seems every government agency and city now has a SWAT team. And SWAT activity has gone up by 1500% in the last two decades.

John W. Whitehead: SWAT Team Mania: The War Against the American Citizen
The United States of SWAT? | National Review Online

Police departments are now being given surplus military vehicles too to wage war war against its own citizens.

TN Police Departments Get Tank-Like Military Vehicles - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports
Leftover armored trucks from Iraq coming to local police agencies - NY Daily News

SWAT teams now routinely use no-knock entry tactics and sometimes end up shooting innocent people when they enter the wrong house or due to faulty intel.

Jose Guerena shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Five Unnecessary SWAT Team Raids Gone Terribly Wrong
WND reports on SWAT raids on the innocent

Let us remember one thing, cops are not military personnel, they are classified as civilians, like everybody else who isnt military. Why should they be issued military weapons and dress like an army of occupation? Should something be done about this?

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. I think in some instances, yes. I can understand the need for these types of teams in some instances which would be dangerous for the regular police to intervene, but there are some instances where we can, without a doubt, say that the police overkill with the use of force.

PS. I would have chosen My Cats Name is Mittens, but I used to have a cat named Boots, not Mittens. :2razz:

I don't second guess the need for well-armed police in large population centers like New York City, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc. But what raises eyebrows is when in a county that has, for example, 11-13,000 people the police have a armored personnel carrier, automatic weapons w/ military upgrades and other military quality gear. That trend is happening all across the United States in small towns & cities. And while SWAT teams have an invaluable role, their meteoric rise in usage is troubling. It is as though every situation with nails gets a sledgehammer.