• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Cops Too Militarized?

Are police units going too far by being overly militarized?


  • Total voters
    55
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.

No drugs found in raid that claimed the life of Texas police officer

This did just happen in a no knock 5AM raid of the wrong house...
 
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.

Small towns don't need tanks is my position, let alone APC's and riot/swat gear.
 
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.

And the government would love to limit citizen's access to certain weaponry.
 
Yes Maggie - back in the Sixties - some forty to fifty years ago, the left was the anti-law enforcement wing. So what made it switch over the last forty to fifty years?

Not desiring to play into the whole RIGHT V LEFT bull****.

But individuals on both sides have distrust for law enforcement in their own way, for their own reasons.

Its not a RIGHT v LEFT issue.
 
I blame the military industrial complex and the government bureaucrat who decided: we have this equipment leftover from Iraq and Afghanistan, let's just sell it to law enforcement.
 
I doubt American police who ever encounter this situation:

They need those weapons because it is South Africa. Start at 2:48.
 
Not desiring to play into the whole RIGHT V LEFT bull****.

But individuals on both sides have distrust for law enforcement in their own way, for their own reasons.

Its not a RIGHT v LEFT issue.

What seems to be left out here is the job "law enforcement." That's traffic control, drunk drivers, accident investigation, vandalism, security at public events, catching speeders, catching reckless drivers, handling nuisance calls, and Community baby sitting in general. Most rural Police forces do a fine job in these areas, but now the Gov't programs want to arm these groups to the max. What gives? What is the gov't expecting? Who did the POLICE support during Occupy Wall Street?
 
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

Obviously you are living in a distant past when the times were "much more simple". In this day and age you can be shot with an uzi if you go to a car to give them a speeding ticket, you can be sprayed with countless of bullets from an AK47 when you go to house because of a noise complaint. Gangs, huge spread of heavy weaponry, people with whole stock piles of weapons, extremist groups with no respect for authorities whatsoever, etc. etc. etc.

The time when a lawman was respected and feared by criminals (except with outlaws) is long gone, gangs in American cities have more weapons and troops than the police officers can troop together.
 
Obviously you are living in a distant past when the times were "much more simple". In this day and age you can be shot with an uzi if you go to a car to give them a speeding ticket you can be sprayed with countless of bullets from an AK47 when you go to house because of a noise complaint.Gangs, huge spread of heavy weaponry, people with whole stock piles of weapons, extremist groups with no respect for authorities whatsoever, etc. etc. etc.

The time when a lawman was respected and feared by criminals (except with outlaws) is long gone, gangs in American cities have more weapons and troops than the police officers can troop together.

Yet somehow violent crime is still on the decline...
 
What seems to be left out here is the job "law enforcement." That's traffic control, drunk drivers, accident investigation, vandalism, security at public events, catching speeders, catching reckless drivers, handling nuisance calls, and Community baby sitting in general. Most rural Police forces do a fine job in these areas, but now the Gov't programs want to arm these groups to the max. What gives? What is the gov't expecting? Who did the POLICE support during Occupy Wall Street?

Alot of Federal Government grants for equipment is funded under the Homeland Security department. The intent is to train local law enforcement to have the ability to respond to terrorism in their communities as the federal government does not have the resources to have a fast response to these incidents everywhere in America.

As far as Occupy Wall Street is concerned..... The Police supported the laws of the community, the rights of the people to be able to move from one place to another freely without obstruction from the Occupy Protesters, the rights of the businesses in the area to not become victims of protest mayhem (destruction of property, etc), as well as removing encampments on public property that had become a cesspool of criminal activity (Rape and Theft was a big problem in these encampments).
 
Yet somehow violent crime is still on the decline...

One could anecdotally say that it is BECAUSE of these special weapons and tactics the local law enforcement uses that violent crime is on the decline.
 
Yet somehow violent crime is still on the decline...

Maybe that has to do with the continuing militarization of the police force?

And yet murder statistic is still worryingly high. The same goes for other violent crime IMHO.
 
One could anecdotally say that it is BECAUSE of these special weapons and tactics the local law enforcement uses that violent crime is on the decline.
Maybe that has to do with the continuing militarization of the police force?
And yet murder statistic is still worryingly high. The same goes for other violent crime IMHO.

They can, but they have no basis for it given that the decline long preceded the militarization of the police. There are no statistics to support this, there are far more attributing it to lead.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is also a fallacy.
 
All I'm hearing from you regarding the worst aspects and trends in government is: "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!!!"

Then you are not reading what I write.
 
Cops are civilians- you can call them para-quasi-neo military all you want but they are still civilians- what part of civilian do you not understand?

I think its the "what do you not understand" part.
 
Not desiring to play into the whole RIGHT V LEFT bull****.

But individuals on both sides have distrust for law enforcement in their own way, for their own reasons.

Its not a RIGHT v LEFT issue.

I was attempting to get people to see that this entire police build up of weaponry is as a direct result of a cutback in police officers in forces around the country. And that development was spurred by the right wing desire to limit taxes and cut back on government spending. So now the far right condemns this so called militarization of local police when it was their very own policies which brought it on in the first place.

That was the point.
 
I was attempting to get people to see that this entire police build up of weaponry is as a direct result of a cutback in police officers in forces around the country. And that development was spurred by the right wing desire to limit taxes and cut back on government spending. So now the far right condemns this so called militarization of local police when it was their very own policies which brought it on in the first place.

That was the point.

It's the government's fault that they CHOOSE to cut back on such things like funding to those types of services instead of cutting back on their OWN wasteful spending. THAT is what people want. For them to stop wasting all of our money, which is exactly what they do. Perhaps if they were better at managing money, they would be able to cut out the waste and leave the important things alone, or even make them more efficient, but instead they'd rather play political blame games, just like you are doing here.
 
They can, but they have no basis for it given that the decline long preceded the militarization of the police. There are no statistics to support this, there are far more attributing it to lead.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is also a fallacy.

I said one could say anecdotally......

However, its still my position that violent crime is on the decline because police administrators have become more like politicians.......

The COMPSTAT model of crime statistics gathering has created a situation where one can change a crime report to a lower classification to make the appearance that crime has been reduced, this didn't used to happen, but since a higher ranking police administrator's career is dependent upon the appearance that his leadership has had the effect of reducing crime, as well as his political aspirations, it is alot more common than you would think now.

I've seen this happen first hand in my law enforcement days.
 
Says you, and you're perfectly free to think that despite how much you hate freedom; And I will defend your freedom of thought, even from you. Tory.

So name calling makes you feel better about yourself?

You on the far right of the libertarian strain of 'thought' use the word FREEDOM or LIBERTY the way a lounge lizard uses the word LOVE to the last woman at the bar 15 minutes before closing. And your goal is exactly the same.
 
It's the government's fault that they CHOOSE to cut back on such things like funding to those types of services instead of cutting back on their OWN wasteful spending. THAT is what people want. For them to stop wasting all of our money, which is exactly what they do. Perhaps if they were better at managing money, they would be able to cut out the waste and leave the important things alone, or even make them more efficient, but instead they'd rather play political blame games, just like you are doing here.

Relating history is not playing any blame game. Its just telling the truth.
 
I said one could say anecdotally......

Which I understood, hence the "They can"

However, its still my position that violent crime is on the decline because police administrators have become more like politicians.......

The COMPSTAT model of crime statistics gathering has created a situation where one can change a crime report to a lower classification to make the appearance that crime has been reduced, this didn't used to happen, but since a higher ranking police administrator's career is dependent upon the appearance that his leadership has had the effect of reducing crime, as well as his political aspirations, it is alot more common than you would think now.

I've seen this happen first hand in my law enforcement days.

You talking about "juking the stats"? "Making robberies into larceny, making rapes disappear."

 
They can, but they have no basis for it given that the decline long preceded the militarization of the police. There are no statistics to support this, there are far more attributing it to lead.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is also a fallacy.

I have to disagree, the safety of police officers is more important than a lot of other things, the rights or criminals to not be swamped by heavily armed police for example. If the police fear there is a reasonable risk for fatalities or injury on the side of the police officers or the public from armed criminals, then I choose the protection of the police and the public rather than the rights of the suspect.
 
I was attempting to get people to see that this entire police build up of weaponry is as a direct result of a cutback in police officers in forces around the country. And that development was spurred by the right wing desire to limit taxes and cut back on government spending. So now the far right condemns this so called militarization of local police when it was their very own policies which brought it on in the first place.

That was the point.

I disagree with your assessment.

My assessment is noted in the first two lines of post #61
 
Back
Top Bottom