“Militarization of police” can you define it and are you against it?

As the topic states...can you please define this? I hear people say that we are having problems with this, but what I would like to know is where this problem is? And what they have a problem with specifically?

blackjack50 said:

As the topic states...can you please define this? I hear people say that we are having problems with this, but what I would like to know is where this problem is? And what they have a problem with specifically?

Click to expand...

For some it is the fact the police use second hand weapons, tactical gear, etc. from the military... Down to the point of armored vehicles.

Others see the paramilitary tactics of SWAT and the such.

Fledermaus said:

For some it is the fact the police use second hand weapons, tactical gear, etc. from the military... Down to the point of armored vehicles.

Others see the paramilitary tactics of SWAT and the such.

Click to expand...

But the issue is that makes no sense. What do they expect them to use? Single action Blackpowder revolvers? Lever actions? A few pump shotguns? No Kevlar? The only one I can really understand is the armored vehicle...but even then...sometimes that is needed. Though I don’t see why they can’t get by with an armored car from a bank or suv maybe.

blackjack50 said:

As the topic states...can you please define this? I hear people say that we are having problems with this, but what I would like to know is where this problem is? And what they have a problem with specifically?

Click to expand...

I see the change as the Police have been the babysitters of their domestic populations of neighbors and friends, but recent training has them becoming the control of a common enemy that used to be the neighbors and friends. They are armed and armored as if in battle. Too anxious to shoot, and too dumb to know better. No prosecution, so they must be above the law. Police States like to used armed thugs and their isn't a noticeable difference.
/

DaveFagan said:

I see the change as the Police have been the babysitters of their domestic populations of neighbors and friends, but recent training has them becoming the control of a common enemy that used to be the neighbors and friends. They are armed and armored as if in battle. Too anxious to shoot, and too dumb to know better. No prosecution, so they must be above the law. Police States like to used armed thugs and their isn't a noticeable difference.
/

Click to expand...

All well and good as a statement. But there really isn’t much substance there with what you have an issue with. Armed as if for battle? With handguns and bullet resistant vests that won’t stop much more than a handgun round? I mean sure...now...they aren’t a babysitter. They are human garbage men...dealing with thugs and addicts and the the dregs. Why? Because our society can’t solve those problems. And their tactics for subject control revolve around THAT reality. They aren’t dealing with a slightly drunk frat boy who is a little out of control. They are dealing with thugs and crazies. People who you CANT allow out of your control for a second. So I don’t really see a problem with their training.

As for prosecution...that really isn’t about militarization. That is about legislation and the judicial side. And not really what I’m talking about. But I do get your issue with it. Our nation has a problem with this for rich people too. Not just Leo’s

Its a many faceted issue. There are many former military in the police, and many of them are "fresh out", treating law enforcement as merely a continuation of their military stint. Right down to the high and tight hair dos, to the receding to the rest of us as "civilians". Then, yes, there is the equipment. Law enforcement get to have "military assault weapons", but us mere "civilians" can't? The divide furthers. Then there's the laws they're charged with enforcing. Patriot act, anyone? We have them carte Blanche to do pretty much as they wished. You know, as long they were doing it to bad people, right? And what do you have to hide, right?

The divide gets further.

DaveFagan said:

I see the change as the Police have been the babysitters of their domestic populations of neighbors and friends, but recent training has them becoming the control of a common enemy that used to be the neighbors and friends. They are armed and armored as if in battle. Too anxious to shoot, and too dumb to know better. No prosecution, so they must be above the law. Police States like to used armed thugs and their isn't a noticeable difference.
/

Click to expand...

SOME day it may get as bad as Russia, Cuba, China, etc.

DaveFagan said:

I see the change as the Police have been the babysitters of their domestic populations of neighbors and friends, but recent training has them becoming the control of a common enemy that used to be the neighbors and friends. They are armed and armored as if in battle. Too anxious to shoot, and too dumb to know better. No prosecution, so they must be above the law. Police States like to used armed thugs and their isn't a noticeable difference.
/

Click to expand...

This phenomenon has greatly increased the tension and public perception (possibly the police perception too) of US versus THEM, cops versus citizens.

REASON and Cato have done a good job exposing and explaining.

https://www.cato.org/events/rise-warrior-cop-militarization-americas-police-forces

It should be ended, but it won't. Many cops are wannabe soldiers, and of course today, many cops are former soldiers.

KevinKohler said:

Its a many faceted issue. There are many former military in the police, and many of them are "fresh out", treating law enforcement as merely a continuation of their military stint. Right down to the high and tight hair dos, to the receding to the rest of us as "civilians". Then, yes, there is the equipment. Law enforcement get to have "military assault weapons", but us mere "civilians" can't? The divide furthers. Then there's the laws they're charged with enforcing. Patriot act, anyone? We have them carte Blanche to do pretty much as they wished. You know, as long they were doing it to bad people, right? And what do you have to hide, right?

The divide gets further.

Click to expand...

1) Is there an issue with veterans joining law enforcement? Like...something we should stop? I have known numerous cops who were veterans and they were great at the job. I’m sure you have too. And “high and tight” is a wonderful haircut. I don’t see why that is a problem? Plenty of firemen and non military like the short hair cuts. Looks clean and professional.

As for civilians...is there another way to refer to non emergency service personnel? I mean law enforcement officers are civilians when off duty. I think that is a trivial thing. It seems you almost have an issue with the brotherhood of law enforcement mentality. Unfortunately that is a product of more than just law enforcement officers having an inflow of military men. They can’t trust “civilians.” They have a job to do and many times even well meaning civilians cause problems. Can you blame them for acting as though they can only rely on fellow officers when time and again that has been proven true?

2) We can buy almost the same things they can. The only thing they can have we can’t...are automatic weapons made after 1986. Which is a gun control legislation issue. Not a “militarized” police issue. They aren’t the ones saying you can’t have it. In fact...if I were a betting man? I’d say most would support your right to buy whatever you want. Most cops I know favor the 2nd amendnement. May be different in the north east? But I don’t know.

3) Again an issue of legislation. Not so much law enforcement itself. The patriot act didn’t give them free reign and it gave more in terms of wiretaps than anything else. And it has expired (for the most part). But those are still policies and laws that non law enforcement keep around. I wouldn’t blame Leo’s for following the laws other people enact. I mean I understand and share your concern, but I wouldn’t call that militarization of law enforcement. That is a legislation issue. Not militarization.

Thoreau72 said:

This phenomenon has greatly increased the tension and public perception (possibly the police perception too) of US versus THEM, cops versus citizens.

REASON and Cato have done a good job exposing and explaining.

https://www.cato.org/events/rise-warrior-cop-militarization-americas-police-forces

It should be ended, but it won't. Many cops are wannabe soldiers, and of course today, many cops are former soldiers.

Click to expand...

Well let me ask...what “military equipment” do you have an issue with? I’m curious. I get the issue with the war on drugs and I’m against it as well. And the war on terror is a logical thing for us to deal with. We did come under major attack from a well organized terrorist group. But having an issue with how it was conducted is normal. We certainly could have handled it better. But I just don’t understand having a problem with LEOs using Kevlar and the most common rifles/carbines and shotguns on the market? Or is it the riot gear? I mean we have come a long way and they have much different tactics for riot control. It certainly isn’t military in nature. They’ve actually stopped using classical military riot control tactics because they don’t work. I mean you won’t see national guard opening fire on students on the news anymore. Even with all the antifa **** going on. But I’m sure the news media would love us to believe that. Lol.

Anyway. So. What specifics do you have on the equipment and such?

blackjack50 said:

All well and good as a statement. But there really isn’t much substance there with what you have an issue with. Armed as if for battle? With handguns and bullet resistant vests that won’t stop much more than a handgun round? I mean sure...now...they aren’t a babysitter. They are human garbage men...dealing with thugs and addicts and the the dregs. Why? Because our society can’t solve those problems.

Click to expand...

We used to, but that was before the left took prayer out of school.

Now prayer is only acceptable if you are a Muslim yelling "Allahu Akbar!" before running people over with a truck.

blackjack50 said:

1) Is there an issue with veterans joining law enforcement? Like...something we should stop? I have known numerous cops who were veterans and they were great at the job. I’m sure you have too. And “high and tight” is a wonderful haircut. I don’t see why that is a problem? Plenty of firemen and non military like the short hair cuts. Looks clean and professional.

As for civilians...is there another way to refer to non emergency service personnel? I mean law enforcement officers are civilians when off duty. I think that is a trivial thing. It seems you almost have an issue with the brotherhood of law enforcement mentality. Unfortunately that is a product of more than just law enforcement officers having an inflow of military men. They can’t trust “civilians.” They have a job to do and many times even well meaning civilians cause problems. Can you blame them for acting as though they can only rely on fellow officers when time and again that has been proven true?

2) We can buy almost the same things they can. The only thing they can have we can’t...are automatic weapons made after 1986. Which is a gun control legislation issue. Not a “militarized” police issue. They aren’t the ones saying you can’t have it. In fact...if I were a betting man? I’d say most would support your right to buy whatever you want. Most cops I know favor the 2nd amendnement. May be different in the north east? But I don’t know.

3) Again an issue of legislation. Not so much law enforcement itself. The patriot act didn’t give them free reign and it gave more in terms of wiretaps than anything else. And it has expired (for the most part). But those are still policies and laws that non law enforcement keep around. I wouldn’t blame Leo’s for following the laws other people enact. I mean I understand and share your concern, but I wouldn’t call that militarization of law enforcement. That is a legislation issue. Not militarization.

Click to expand...

The issue should be obvious. The mindset. The public are not the enemy. Neither are the criminals, for that matter, but the lines get blurred when the police travel in elite paraminlitary squads in armoured vehicles..

Manc Skipper said:

The issue should be obvious. The mindset. The public are not the enemy. Neither are the criminals, for that matter, but the lines get blurred when the police travel in elite paraminlitary squads in armoured vehicles..

Click to expand...

You realize that 99% of them don’t right? They travel around in squad cars. And they carry a handgun and have pistol level Kevlar.

As for the “mindset” of us versus them...you know it is them versus criminals. Right?

blackjack50 said:

1) Is there an issue with veterans joining law enforcement? Like...something we should stop? I have known numerous cops who were veterans and they were great at the job. I’m sure you have too. And “high and tight” is a wonderful haircut. I don’t see why that is a problem? Plenty of firemen and non military like the short hair cuts. Looks clean and professional.

As for civilians...is there another way to refer to non emergency service personnel? I mean law enforcement officers are civilians when off duty. I think that is a trivial thing. It seems you almost have an issue with the brotherhood of law enforcement mentality. Unfortunately that is a product of more than just law enforcement officers having an inflow of military men. They can’t trust “civilians.” They have a job to do and many times even well meaning civilians cause problems. Can you blame them for acting as though they can only rely on fellow officers when time and again that has been proven true?

2) We can buy almost the same things they can. The only thing they can have we can’t...are automatic weapons made after 1986. Which is a gun control legislation issue. Not a “militarized” police issue. They aren’t the ones saying you can’t have it. In fact...if I were a betting man? I’d say most would support your right to buy whatever you want. Most cops I know favor the 2nd amendnement. May be different in the north east? But I don’t know.

3) Again an issue of legislation. Not so much law enforcement itself. The patriot act didn’t give them free reign and it gave more in terms of wiretaps than anything else. And it has expired (for the most part). But those are still policies and laws that non law enforcement keep around. I wouldn’t blame Leo’s for following the laws other people enact. I mean I understand and share your concern, but I wouldn’t call that militarization of law enforcement. That is a legislation issue. Not militarization.

Click to expand...

When you no longer view yourself as "one of them", or any of "them" as "one of us", that's an issue. And yes, I've met vets who are LEOs, and it's no issue. It's the younger generation, guys my age (under 40) who seem to have the biggest issues adjusting. Maybe being former military is just correlation, but that's my personal observation. The times I have had dealings with law enforcement, that's the distinct vibe I got. Very much us vs them, and I was a them, even though on a couple occasions, I was there to help. Again, though, this was only with the younger guys.

Gun control legislation is the issue, though. You seem bent on defending the police, but YOU asked the question. Bottom line is, law enforcement should not have access to anything the rest of us don't. We're using those firearms for the same exact reason (presumably), to defend ourselves from aggressors.

Did the cops ask for this divide? No, but that doesn't make it any less of a divide between us.

It's ALL issues of legislation! Doesn't change the fact, that those charged with enforcing unjust laws, are not going to be viewed very favorably. I can be arrested for carrying mushrooms I picked in the woods, for ****s sake.

Now, are these things militarization? No. They are, however, the underlying causes of it, IMO. We trust them less, and they stopped trusting us years ago. Not a healthy work enrollment. Makes people edgy. Makes people angry, hateful even. Makes cops targets. And what do you do when you're a target? Two choices....quit the job, or prepare, physically, and mentally. Riot gear, jumpy, etc. The full deal. Where once our boys in blue would have showed up in their standard best cop gear, they now arrive dressed for battle, because to not do so, COULD be to not go home tonight. Where once "civilians" would smile and wave to the local police officer, many try to ignore (and hope to BE ignored), at best, while some avoid and scowl. And why not? We have made everything illegal, we're all of us criminals of some sort or another, now.

blackjack50 said:

As the topic states...can you please define this? I hear people say that we are having problems with this, but what I would like to know is where this problem is? And what they have a problem with specifically?

Click to expand...

My problem is that it seems to now be the SOP to use the militarized police to attack problems that cops used to handle. Search Warrant? Send in SWAT. Suspected drug dealer. Send in SWAT. FALSHBANG before anything... shoot a kid in the wrong house... that is an accident, but certainly not the cops fault. It just goes on and on and on and on and on...

KevinKohler said:

When you no longer view yourself as "one of them", or any of "them" as "one of us", that's an issue. And yes, I've met vets who are LEOs, and it's no issue. It's the younger generation, guys my age (under 40) who seem to have the biggest issues adjusting. Maybe being former military is just correlation, but that's my personal observation. The times I have had dealings with law enforcement, that's the distinct vibe I got. Very much us vs them, and I was a them, even though on a couple occasions, I was there to help. Again, though, this was only with the younger guys.

Click to expand...

If this mentality is a problem...what proposed solution do you have? Keeping in mind that there will always be an us vs them mentality given that police don’t tend to deal with US as in people like you and me. Not as much as they deal with the dregs and losers.

Gun control legislation is the issue, though. You seem bent on defending the police, but YOU asked the question. Bottom line is, law enforcement should not have access to anything the rest of us don't. We're using those firearms for the same exact reason (presumably), to defend ourselves from aggressors.

Click to expand...

Of course I’m bent on defending them. They ARE the good guys. They are the guys that uphold the laws that you and me live by. That being said...so you have no problem with them having M4s and MP5s...as long as you can own them as well? You can of course. Nothing illegal about it.

Did the cops ask for this divide? No, but that doesn't make it any less of a divide between us.

Click to expand...

Do you see it as our responsibility as a society to lessen the divide as well?. The “us vs them” mentality doesn’t really address the militarization of police though. That isn’t a military thing. Republicans vs Democrats? Atheists vs Christians? UF vs FSu? Yankees vs Red Sox? That is a human thing. So if the complaint is about US vs them...don’t you think using the catch all term of “militarization” doesn’t make sense given that it isn’t a “military” thing? You address this later so I will continue down there...

It's ALL issues of legislation! Doesn't change the fact, that those charged with enforcing unjust laws, are not going to be viewed very favorably. I can be arrested for carrying mushrooms I picked in the woods, for ****s sake.

Now, are these things militarization? No. They are, however, the underlying causes of it, IMO. We trust them less, and they stopped trusting us years ago. Not a healthy work enrollment. Makes people edgy. Makes people angry, hateful even. Makes cops targets. And what do you do when you're a target? Two choices....quit the job, or prepare, physically, and mentally. Riot gear, jumpy, etc. The full deal. Where once our boys in blue would have showed up in their standard best cop gear, they now arrive dressed for battle, because to not do so, COULD be to not go home tonight. Where once "civilians" would smile and wave to the local police officer, many try to ignore (and hope to BE ignored), at best, while some avoid and scowl. And why not? We have made everything illegal, we're all of us criminals of some sort or another, now.

Click to expand...

So then your issue isn’t militarization. It is culture. And you see militarization as a symptom...not a cause of police problems. Which makes a hell of a lot more sense than viewing it the other way. I appreciate the explanation. I live in a college town with a lot of suburbanite kids who bitch about it...but don’t really know what it means. I mean your average beat cop is carrying the same thing now that they were 20 years ago. A Glock, Kevlar, pepper spray (taser maybe), baton, a radio, and handcuffs. And that stuff has only barely changed. The training has gotten more rigorous. And they now are adding in stuff for mass shooters and more hand to hand sfuff. And they really should be. But the average college kid? They don’t know much about what police deal with on a day to day basis. Or why the tactics are the way they are.

The riot gear (I addressed to another poster) is actually a cool topic. They are actually LESS militarized than ever before. Their gear just looks different (they switched from Roman army tactics to a riot control style that allows people to escape...which is really cool). Anyway.

Bodhisattva said:

My problem is that it seems to now be the SOP to use the militarized police to attack problems that cops used to handle. Search Warrant? Send in SWAT. Suspected drug dealer. Send in SWAT. FALSHBANG before anything... shoot a kid in the wrong house... that is an accident, but certainly not the cops fault. It just goes on and on and on and on and on...

Click to expand...

Do you know that SWAT is just a qualification for most departments? Not a specialized unit. They are officers rated to serve warrants and qualified on the weapons and equipment. I mean when it comes to serving a warrant on a known armed and dangerous felon...do you really want to go in without Kevlar rated for rifle rounds? And enough guys to actually overwhelm the target? That is a globally used tactic because it works. Now. They could spend more time trying to catch someone outside and getting the target right...but that is on your detectives.

Flash bangs are rare. But Kevlar and rifles? Do you really have an issue with that?

blackjack50 said:

As the topic states...can you please define this? I hear people say that we are having problems with this, but what I would like to know is where this problem is? And what they have a problem with specifically?

Click to expand...

As has been stated, some people say it's the tactical gear they get because, apparently, it looks scary. That's not the issue at all, imo, and not what it should mean by militarization of the police. It's the TTPs that are the issue for me. There should be almost no instance where police have to stack on a door and breach using no-knock tactics as if they are busting into a jihadist compound.

Just wait for dude-bro to go to the store and stag him in the parking lot with a couple of plain-clothes officers. There are just way too many other options to use in place of no-knocks.

Further, there are too many things that can go wrong when serving no-knocks warrants. They could get the wrong house (it happens) and shoot someone that in completely innocent, or that person grabs a gun because someone is crashing through their door and they all get shot. They could have the correct house but the information leading to the warrant was not solid and the person has nothing. They can throw a flashbang into a baby's crib and blow it's face up and then walk off like they don't have to pay the medical bills (yes, that's specific because it happened).

This is the real meaning behind militarization of the police and the problems surrounding it.

blackjack50 said:

Well let me ask...what “military equipment” do you have an issue with? I’m curious. I get the issue with the war on drugs and I’m against it as well. And the war on terror is a logical thing for us to deal with. We did come under major attack from a well organized terrorist group. But having an issue with how it was conducted is normal. We certainly could have handled it better. But I just don’t understand having a problem with LEOs using Kevlar and the most common rifles/carbines and shotguns on the market? Or is it the riot gear? I mean we have come a long way and they have much different tactics for riot control. It certainly isn’t military in nature. They’ve actually stopped using classical military riot control tactics because they don’t work. I mean you won’t see national guard opening fire on students on the news anymore. Even with all the antifa **** going on. But I’m sure the news media would love us to believe that. Lol.

Anyway. So. What specifics do you have on the equipment and such?

Click to expand...

Back in the 70's counties and cities acquiring "military surplus" was fairly common. My county and city each received a small TH-55 training and observation helicopter, and I was cool with that because I got to fly them a bit with deputy friends of mine. Harmless and useful.

Today we have one of the big armored rubber-tired vehicles. I don't know the designation, maybe MRAP? Anyway it is useful when floods come, but when deployed against protesting civilians it gives a bad impression. It is not armed, so nobody has been shot, but it greatly enhances the perception of US v. THEM.

The same with all the military garb. Massed humans dressed like that, masks, helmets etc, resemble automatons, not humans. The idea of police "serving the public" looking like that is hard to grasp. It is US v. THEM

Thoreau72 said:

Back in the 70's counties and cities acquiring "military surplus" was fairly common. My county and city each received a small TH-55 training and observation helicopter, and I was cool with that because I got to fly them a bit with deputy friends of mine. Harmless and useful.

Today we have one of the big armored rubber-tired vehicles. I don't know the designation, maybe MRAP? Anyway it is useful when floods come, but when deployed against protesting civilians it gives a bad impression. It is not armed, so nobody has been shot, but it greatly enhances the perception of US v. THEM.

The same with all the military garb. Massed humans dressed like that, masks, helmets etc, resemble automatons, not humans. The idea of police "serving the public" looking like that is hard to grasp. It is US v. THEM

Click to expand...

I can understand the issue with MRaps...but what do you expect police to where during protests? They get bricks and Molotov’s thrown at them. Nomex fire suite with armor isn’t such a bad thing. The average cop won’t be putting that on except in rare situations.

blackjack50 said:

I can understand the issue with MRaps...but what do you expect police to where during protests? They get bricks and Molotov’s thrown at them. Nomex fire suite with armor isn’t such a bad thing. The average cop won’t be putting that on except in rare situations.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, and we would digress somewhat if we addressed the reasons that citizens protest.

IMO, the us v. them attitude and perception is becoming worse. I'm not against the cops, I'm against really lousy public policy made by elected officials. The militarization of the police is not a good thing for this country. It can be toned down or otherwise tuned, but I think it's bad policy as we see it today, as treated by REASON and Cato.

Thoreau72 said:

I understand your point, and we would digress somewhat if we addressed the reasons that citizens protest.

IMO, the us v. them attitude and perception is becoming worse. I'm not against the cops, I'm against really lousy public policy made by elected officials. The militarization of the police is not a good thing for this country. It can be toned down or otherwise tuned, but I think it's bad policy as we see it today, as treated by REASON and Cato.

Click to expand...

I think that actually says it perfectly. “Tuned.” Because That is appropriate. There shouldn’t be an issue with police using riot gear for protection of citizens and property from an unruly mob bent on destruction. Nor should there be an issue with police wearing rifle rated Kevlar when serving a warrant on a dangerous felon. But a policy of tuning the police into their community needs. Turning away from “war on drugs” policies to working with the community to assist with addiction and treatment.

My local department is excellent at this. They actually couldn’t be accused of the standard crap. They are wonderful examples of what Leo’s should be. So I don’t think the problem is as broad as people think.

blackjack50 said:

As the topic states...can you please define this? I hear people say that we are having problems with this, but what I would like to know is where this problem is? And what they have a problem with specifically?

Click to expand...

blackjack50:

Militarisation of civilian police forces is a complex issue which is occuring globally. As others have explained it boils down to several key issues.

One is military kit being issued to civilian police and other law enforcement institutions. This has had the effect of making police far more lethal than they were prior to the 1970's. The issuance of weapons like armoured cars, armoured trucks, MRAP's, anti-tank weapons, MANPADs, military grade automatic and semi-automatic weapons, military grade body armour, military grade surveillance and intelligence gathering equipment, drones and finally, my personal favourite, the issuance between 1997 and 2013 of 12,000 bayonets should make the enhanced lethality of police or other law enforcement agencies clear. Why would police in the USA need 12,000 bayonets?

The second issue is tactics. The shift from traditional techniques of law enforcement to techniques of de facto military occupation has made police much more authoritarian and has effectively forced citizens to become an instantly compliant population or risk injury and death. Furthermore the basic legal principle of the presumption of innocence has been tossed aside. Police kettling tactics during public protests no longer distinguish between law abiding citizens and those alleged to be rioting. They are all kettled together, put under great stress, threatened with or subjected to physical violence and then routinely brutalised, regardless of their recent actions. The same is true of police entering private homes. Maximum obedience and instant compliance expectations by police of bewildered suspects coupled with the very real threat of lethal force in turn coupled with surprise-attack entry, creates an environment where police act like an occupying power rather than a community service. Police in plain clothes are now authorised to snatch suspects in public protests, to bundle them into vans and to spirit them off at speed as a bewildered crowd looks on, unsure of whether the kidnappers are police or thugs. Police infiltrate public protests and provoke violence in order to justify heavy handed responses by police forces "controlling" the protests.

Third is the manner in which police are recruited. They are increasingly drawn from the military where the police recruits were indoctrinated with a military mindset and a martial mentality. The profession "childhood" of too many police is now a military one. Just as a soldier's professional "childhood" will colour the kind of soldiering he/she will do for the rest of his/her life, as first experiences shape the soldier, so too many police now have a military professional "childhood" which shapes their approach and mindset towards policing. Rather than de-programming such a military mindset before admitting former military personnel into civilian policing, we are allowing that military "childhood" to morph policing from a routinely low intensity civil service job punctuated by occasional violent incidents into a routinely high intensity coercive trade which uses high levels of intimidation and violence routinely. Police in many jurisdictions are losing their people skills and communication skills and are having them replaced by the tool-kit of the military occupier.

Training and police tactics is the fourth issue. Militarisation of police leads to stressing the skills necessary to survive violent interaction with the wider public rather than stressing the people and communications skills necessary to avoid violence. Knowledge of the community they police, negotiation skills and de-escalation of violence procedures are de-emphasised, if taught at all, while military style breaching tactics, tactical manoeuvring and instant target acquisition and fire-response is over emphasised. The result is that policing in some American cities is becoming more like a military occupation and less like a public service devoted to serving and protecting the wider public.

Police culture is the fifth issue. Police no longer see themselves first and foremost as armed civilians charged with serving the community around them. More and more their mind set is shifting to an 'us vs. them' paradigm where they are no longer civilians and the "other" non-police civilians are their potential foes rather than their allies.

Alas I am out of time but I will continue this evening.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

blackjack50:

Militarisation of civilian police forces is a complex issue which is occuring globally. As others have explained it boils down to several key issues.

One is military kit being issued to civilian police and other law enforcement institutions. This has had the effect of making police far more lethal than they were prior to the 1970's. The issuance of weapons like armoured cars, armoured trucks, MRAP's, anti-tank weapons, MANPADs, military grade automatic and semi-automatic weapons, military grade body armour, military grade surveillance and intelligence gathering equipment, drones and finally, my personal favourite, the issuance between 1997 and 2013 of 12,000 bayonets should make the enhanced lethality of police on other law enforcement agencies clear. Why would police in the USA need 12,000 bayonets?

Click to expand...

Big post. I’m going to break it down. I will start here and try and respond to the rest at 9. Anyway. The primary issuance of bayonets went to federal agencies. Specifically to border patrol in Texas. And their is a very reasonable explanation. They are knives. The idea that it is a “bayonet” is really irrelevant. No departments in America “fix bayonets” and charges. They just don’t. The bayonet as we know it is a multipurpose tool for cutting wire, branches, and my cousin (fireman) actually uses a bayonet for something specific. Of course his is his father’s marine issued Kabar from the 70s. Anyway. Seatbelts. They are first responders and that is (my guess) probably the first thing they Use them for.

Sounds odd huh? Totally logical. Especially for the officers out in the “bush.” There are plenty of them. Ever LEO should be carrying a high quality knife. I would prefer a good pocketknife and a multi tool. But you get what you get.

As for armored vehicles...there are certainly uses for those. And they reflect the sad decay in our nation:


This one is hard for me to personally listen to because a close friend was on the fire truck. He is ok and he saved his crew’s life (former military man). He has 2 sons. And really a single parent. Anyway. If you know Tallahassee...you know it is a small city. Even though it is the capital. Population is 180K or so. And their county departments service the multiple counties surrounding as well (for active shooters, search and rescue, manhunts, etc ad naseum). So when it comes down to it...to say that there is no need for a bullet resistance vehicle doesn’t make senses LEOs need to be prepared for that.

As for “military grade body armor.” Can you tell me why that is a problem? Why shouldn’t we be issuing our officers the highest quality armor out there? If we could issue them Kevlar that stops a .50BMG that they could wear comfortably all day on patrol...why not? Are we suggesting they shouldn’t be protected? It is kinda of like arguing against hard hats on a construction sight. And as far as weapons. They have the same weapons we have. AR15s and shotguns. And they should. That has been proven time and again. Unfortunately.

Anyway. This is all I can type for now.

Evilroddy said:

blackjack50:

Militarisation of civilian police forces is a complex issue which is occuring globally. As others have explained it boils down to several key issues.

One is military kit being issued to civilian police and other law enforcement institutions. This has had the effect of making police far more lethal than they were prior to the 1970's. The issuance of weapons like armoured cars, armoured trucks, MRAP's, anti-tank weapons, MANPADs, military grade automatic and semi-automatic weapons, military grade body armour, military grade surveillance and intelligence gathering equipment, drones and finally, my personal favourite, the issuance between 1997 and 2013 of 12,000 bayonets should make the enhanced lethality of police or other law enforcement agencies clear. Why would police in the USA need 12,000 bayonets?

The second issue is tactics. The shift from traditional techniques of law enforcement to techniques of de facto military occupation has made police much more authoritarian and has effectively forced citizens to become an instantly compliant population or risk injury and death. Furthermore the basic legal principle of the presumption of innocence has been tossed aside. Police kettling tactics during public protests no longer distinguish between law abiding citizens and those alleged to be rioting. They are all kettled together, put under great stress, threatened with or subjected to physical violence and then routinely brutalised, regardless of their recent actions. The same is true of police entering private homes. Maximum obedience and instant compliance expectations by police of bewildered suspects coupled with the very real threat of lethal force in turn coupled with surprise-attack entry, creates an environment where police act like an occupying power rather than a community service. Police in plain clothes are now authorised to snatch suspects in public protests, to bundle them into vans and to spirit them off at speed as a bewildered crowd looks on, unsure of whether the kidnappers are police or thugs. Police infiltrate public protests and provoke violence in order to justify heavy handed responses by police forces "controlling" the protests.

Third is the manner in which police are recruited. They are increasingly drawn from the military where the police recruits were indoctrinated with a military mindset and a martial mentality. The profession "childhood" of too many police is now a military one. Just as a soldier's professional "childhood" will colour the kind of soldiering he/she will do for the rest of his/her life, as first experiences shape the soldier, so too many police now have a military professional "childhood" which shapes their approach and mindset towards policing. Rather than de-programming such a military mindset before admitting former military personnel into civilian policing, we are allowing that military "childhood" to morph policing from a routinely low intensity civil service job punctuated by occasional violent incidents into a routinely high intensity coercive trade which uses high levels of intimidation and violence routinely. Police in many jurisdictions are losing their people skills and communication skills and are having them replaced by the tool-kit of the military occupier.

Training and police tactics is the fourth issue. Militarisation of police leads to stressing the skills necessary to survive violent interaction with the wider public rather than stressing the people and communications skills necessary to avoid violence. Knowledge of the community they police, negotiation skills and de-escalation of violence procedures are de-emphasised, if taught at all, while military

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

I can address one more thing. The defensive tactics. Do you realize that every officer will encounter a violent altercation in their career? They WILL deal with a non complian suspect who is resisting arrest. When you talk about teaching officer survival and “deescalation,” you realize that there are SOME people that you can’t talk them back from violence. And you can’t let them go either. Why? They are a danger to society. And so every officer needs to know how to subdue the non complian suspect. Most normal people are going to be afraid no matter what. Not of being shot. But of facing consequences of breaking a law. Hell. I’m a concealed carrier and nervous when I have dealt with police...because of speeding tickets.

As for civilians. They are potential suspects. Yep. And it is normal to treat them as such when the officer suspects they are lying.