- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,554
- Reaction score
- 31,152
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Cops may still be civilians, but civilians with military weapons far beyond the requirement for law enforcement.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lawyers on this forum tried to explain this to him, he doesn't care about facts.
Source for this misunderstanding?
It is a fact not a misunderstanding cops are sworn uniformed officers ( hence the term police OFFICER ) of the government.
Do you know what the word "source" means?
Sure now look up the word fact.
What militarization of the police?
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.
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.
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.
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
Lawyers on this forum tried to explain this to him, he doesn't care about facts.
Source for this misunderstanding?
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:
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.
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.
I blame the prevalence of guns in American society.
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?