Are Cops Too Militarized?

jamesrage said:

We are not talking about individual ownership of weapons.We are talking about the militarization of law enforcement.

Click to expand...

okay - so how you define and measure such a charge beyond mere updating of technology and the use of additional technology to replace actual humans?

haymarket said:

okay - so how you define and measure such a charge beyond mere updating of technology and the use of additional technology to replace actual humans?

Click to expand...

Again this thread is about the militarization of the police. Take your rant about 2nd amendment advocates somewhere else.

jamesrage said:

Again this thread is about the militarization of the police. Take your rant about 2nd amendment advocates somewhere else.

Click to expand...

Rant about the 2nd Amendment!?!?!?!?! What the hell are you talking about????? I asked how do you define the charge of militarization of police and gave you some parameters. I have no idea what the 2nd amendment has to do with your outburst.

Arbo said:

Yes, you are continuing to shift the focus off your stupid claims, and continuing on with your line of thinking. You know, ignoring the reality to continue the fantasy….

Click to expand...

You mean you made an incorrect accusation, saying I did not look at the crime statistics and I called you for it?

Sorry, but I think there is too much violence in the US even if it is not as bad as it was a few years ago. Life for a police officer is still way too dangerous. I would much rather have a heavily armed swat team raiding a house with shock and awe. IMHO that gives the most safety for the officers and for the suspect. I think a suspect is more in danger if officers with much less training raid a house or try to arrest a person.

The reality is that being a police officer in the US is dangerous. Just like being arrested or being stopped by the police can be a real danger in the US. Those things are reality. In the Netherlands and a lot of other countries it is very rare that a police officer needs to draw his gun and much less often he has to fire his guns.

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...

As an ex-cop I say yes, it has become so.

Things we used to send two regular uniform officers with sidearms to handle, now call for a SWAT team armed like Seal Team Six and dressed in all black like Stormtroopers from hell, a helicopter with FLIR sensors and an armored personnel transport. :roll:

haymarket said:

Rant about the 2nd Amendment!?!?!?!?! What the hell are you talking about????? I asked how do you define the charge of militarization of police and gave you some parameters. I have no idea what the 2nd amendment has to do with your outburst.

Click to expand...

Your whole bitchfest in this thread is about how anyone against police militarization hates police and then you wine how 2nd amendment advocates want citizens to have the newest arms but not the police.

Peter King said:

Sorry, but I think there is too much violence in the US even if

Click to expand...

Again, you continue to shift away. Just admit you were wrong about how common it was for cops to get gunned down by uzi's and ak47's… it's easy, most grownups are able to admit when they are wrong.

jamesrage said:

Your whole bitchfest in this thread is about how anyone against police militarization hates police and then you wine how 2nd amendment advocates want citizens to have the newest arms but not the police.

Click to expand...

Stop your own whining bitchfest Rage. I never mentioned the Second Amendment in that post you linked to. My point was a valid one and if you don't like it - tough. My post was about right wingers who want ever increasing technology while wanting to limit the police. I stand behind that and it shows the hypocrisy behind this thread.

My point has also been that the far right whined and carped and cried and moaned and bitched and complained about high taxes and big government so they got their way and taxes have been cut in many areas and municipal services have been cut and police officers jobs have been cut. So if cops are not there to patrol the damn streets - how do you think they make up for that loss of labor? technology. So on the one hand the far right helps to create a situation and then they attempt to use the results of that situation for petty political gain.

Screw em - the damn hypocrites that they are.

The reason why police are becoming so militarized is two fold.

First, the industries that create military technology are the same industries which create police technology. They are selling to two markets: domestic law enforcement and the department of defense. It's pure profit to them. What most people fail to realize is that the bloated military budget and its innovations also end up being used by police. These corporations see no difference between enemies of the state and American citizens... their tech is designed to suppress either and it's just about money to them.

Secondly, despite the decline in over all crime in the past 10-15 years, the government continues to funnel large amounts of cash into an over-bloated law enforcement system. Instead of laying people off, they are expanding and putting all the funds into weaponization. This is what happens when there's too many laws on the books, along with obsolete branches of government like the DEA.

Actually... there is a third, more nefarious reason, and it's one that most people don't want to look at. And that's the increasing civil unrest that's going to take place as the economic system continues to tank. Most developed nations are investing heavily in domestic law enforcement right now despite declining crime rates, and it's because when the economy tanks all hell is going to break loose. Much of the police weaponization has already been exported to developing nations where civil unrest is more and more common. They're feeling the burn of economic inequity but it will spread here soon enough as our middle class is cannibalized by the aristocracy.

It has nothing to do with right vs. left and it's utterly pathetic that people are still bickering over that crap when the house is already starting to catch fire. Wake up.

Arbo said:

Again, you continue to shift away. Just admit you were wrong about how common it was for cops to get gunned down by uzi's and ak47's… it's easy, most grownups are able to admit when they are wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you and me are going a bit off the straight and narrow and I am afraid it happened because of a unfortunate mistake with no malicious intent whatsoever.

You seem to have gotten the impression that I have stated that it was common for cops to get gunned down by uzi's and AK'47's. And I simply did not understand what incorrect statement on my part you wanted me to own up to.

Unfortunately I got a bit irritated (only a bit) and in that irritated state, I have been a bit short with you, and I apologize for having been a bit snippy but I just did not understand what you were accusing me of.

Now in an effort to end this discussion/issue, I have collected all (or at least I think it is all) of the posts I have made in this thread, you can read them below this blue colored text. All I think I said in this thread is that in this day and age you can be shot with an Uzi or that if you raid a house, you can be sprayed with countless of bullets from an AK'47.

I hope we can come to a peaceful understanding and to do so I, as stated above, would like to apologize for calling your statement arrogant and wise nosery, that was not right on my part to do so. I may not have broken the rules (I at least hope not) but it was not polite on my part.

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...

and

Peter King said:

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.

Click to expand...

I also wrote in this thread:

Peter King said:

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.

Click to expand...

and:

Peter King said:

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.

Click to expand...

and:

Peter King said:

Sorry, but I do not share your preference. They are there to protect and serve, not get killed due to not being protected enough themselves during their duties. If they have to arrest someone of whom they know that he owns a large stockpile of weapons then it would be foolish to not go in in a manner that protects the police officers and the public.

As said, in a nation with no large numbers of weapons in a lot of homes I would agree that militarization of the police is a bad thing, sadly in the US it is a necessary thing.

Click to expand...

and

Peter King said:

I am sorry, but using handguns does not save the life of an officer when he busts down a door to arrest a drug dealer.

Click to expand...

and

Peter King said:

I mean a person with several handguns can be just as dangerous to a police officer as a criminal with a heavier weapon.

Click to expand...

and

Peter King said:

No, you are wrong, I viewed the statistics before I first answered your question. But in the past I have also, in earlier discussions, compared crime statistics in the US to those in other industrialized countries and the number of murders as well as the insane number of people jailed in the US show that there is a problem with violence in the US. Without these militarized police units the violence might be much worse.

So please don't thank yourself for things that live only in your mind and not in reality.

Click to expand...

and

Peter King said:

That comment had to do with your incorrect accusation and arrogant wise nosery comment about me not looking at the crime figures.

I also did not mean the use of heavy weapons but the risk and threat of heavy weapons. If the police raids a house they almost never know what kind of weapons the suspect has in his/her house and the liberal weapons laws and the availability of heavy weapons means that the police will have to act or assume that the suspect may have such weapons.

That is the risk the cops have to deal with and it is not an assumed risk.

Your wise nosery claim that I did not look at the crime stats was untrue. I did not dodge anything IMHO and that is all that matters. And I did not claim I looked at those figures, I looked at those figures and while the numbers are a good deal lower than sometime ago, the crime numbers and the threat level is still way too high for a civilized western country. That is the reality.

And I am not shifting focus, I am still of the opinion that in a country with such an easy access to heavy guns and the risk of large numbers of handguns, it is not that strange that the police has become that militarized. Do I like it? No, I wish it were not necessary. Do I worry about it? Yes, there will be risks of excesses but for that there should be oversight and the moral standards of the police and it's officers. Because not all officers and/or police agencies always hold themselves to those standards does not mean that there is no need for militarized police units, maybe the biggest thing that is needed is better oversight and using these extreme police practices as seldom as possible.

Click to expand...

and

Peter King said:

You mean you made an incorrect accusation, saying I did not look at the crime statistics and I called you for it?

Sorry, but I think there is too much violence in the US even if it is not as bad as it was a few years ago. Life for a police officer is still way too dangerous. I would much rather have a heavily armed swat team raiding a house with shock and awe. IMHO that gives the most safety for the officers and for the suspect. I think a suspect is more in danger if officers with much less training raid a house or try to arrest a person.

The reality is that being a police officer in the US is dangerous. Just like being arrested or being stopped by the police can be a real danger in the US. Those things are reality. In the Netherlands and a lot of other countries it is very rare that a police officer needs to draw his gun and much less often he has to fire his guns.

Click to expand...

Peter King said:

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.

Click to expand...

No I am living in the present. The point is times were not much different in the past.

Gangs and criminals and outlaws have always been as heavily armed and the police did not need militarization to deal with them.

150 years ago they simply used shotguns or dynamite or whatever powerful weapon they could get their hands on. Same spraying of countless bullets but the cops did not feel the need to have a permanent army as they do today. Perhaps because in some cases the citizens assisted the police with posses or other support.

The point your argument is a false one because only the cops are recently being more heavily armed the criminals and gangs are not more heavily armed than the 1930s or 40s or 50s etc.

haymarket said:

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

Click to expand...

Using the internet to try to prove a point that you know nothing about isnt very smart. Like I said, instead of looking it up and pretend you know it ask a real person who knows about it, it will make you look less of a fool.

And not every link says the same thing:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_police_officer_a_civilian?#slide=1

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...

The only reason to have armed enforcement divisions in so many agencies is if one believes that the governing philosophy should be authoritarian.

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...

Conservatives like the protect and serve model, not the sit down and shut up or else model.

MaggieD said:

Do you really think this is a right-wing phenom? I'd be very surprised if that were the case. Think hippies and pigs.

Click to expand...

When institutions become overbearing, it is part of the american fabric to push back. We conservatives and hippies alike value freedom without the threat of big brother interfering in and chilling our speech and lawful acts.

Peter King said:

I am sorry, but using handguns does not save the life of an officer when he busts down a door to arrest a drug dealer.

Click to expand...

Cops are supposed to knock on doors and identify themselves. No-knock entries should be eliminated. Yeah, yeah I know that drug dealers might flush their stashes down toilets but a lot of grief such as going into the wrong house and killing innocents may be prevented if we stopped this stupid drug war.

jamesrage said:

Yes the police are being militarized and it should be stopped.This is nothing more than a back door violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Click to expand...

I agree, and would add the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as another extension of this.

It is essentially a law enforcement agency that was specifically created to get around most protections that exist for US citizens from police overreach. Though created after 9/11 for the purpose of thwarting terrorists, today its main focus is enforcing laws against American citizens that are in no way related to terrorist activity.

Joby said:

I agree, and would add the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as another extension of this.

It is essentially a law enforcement agency that was specifically created to get around most protections that exist for US citizens from police overreach. Though created after 9/11 for the purpose of thwarting terrorists, today its main focus is enforcing laws against American citizens that are in no way related to terrorist activity.

Click to expand...

Right, because the terrorists hate our freedoms, therefore, if we get rid of freedom then the terrorists will back off.

I remember a time where, the policy was "we do not negotiate with terrorists", now, it's the opposite, now it's "let's preemptively give in to what we believe the terrorists want, to inoculate ourselves against terrorism".

But, you all wanted the patriot act, the NDAA. And all those other recent changes to the core values Americans espouse.

At the end of the day, you want someone to blame, blame yourselves collectively.

Soupnazi630 said:

No I am living in the present. The point is times were not much different in the past.

Gangs and criminals and outlaws have always been as heavily armed and the police did not need militarization to deal with them.

150 years ago they simply used shotguns or dynamite or whatever powerful weapon they could get their hands on. Same spraying of countless bullets but the cops did not feel the need to have a permanent army as they do today. Perhaps because in some cases the citizens assisted the police with posses or other support.

The point your argument is a false one because only the cops are recently being more heavily armed the criminals and gangs are not more heavily armed than the 1930s or 40s or 50s etc.

Click to expand...

Good post soup!

I saw a TV documentary about the policing of the 1930s. Apparently the bank robber gangs had gotten a hold of some BAR 50s and Thompson sub-machine guns. The Police were no match using 38 stub-nosed specials. They had to upgrade their fire power just to be able to keep up with the gangs.

I suppose that what we see today is that law enforcement never wants to play catch up again.

The difference is that while Bonnie and Clyde were wanted dead of alive, the SWAT teams of today are being used in far lighter crimes. It's like they want to instill fear in the average law abiding citizen. This culminates in deaths in raids that used to just cause arrests.

Caine said:

What is this "fallout" you speak of.

You had to find some way to pin the term "war on drugs" into your response.... now explain what this fallout of our war on drugs is..

Click to expand...

What? Is this a serious question?

Let's not forget that the "war on drugs" is not just an American thing. Other countries have adopted this policy at our urging as well. See links below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/opinion/11iht-edcardoso11.html?_r=0

War on Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

d0gbreath said:

Good post soup!

I saw a TV documentary about the policing of the 1930s. Apparently the bank robber gangs had gotten a hold of some BAR 50s and Thompson sub-machine guns. The Police were no match using 38 stub-nosed specials. They had to upgrade their fire power just to be able to keep up with the gangs.

I suppose that what we see today is that law enforcement never wants to play catch up again.

The difference is that while Bonnie and Clyde were wanted dead of alive, the SWAT teams of today are being used in far lighter crimes. It's like they want to instill fear in the average law abiding citizen. This culminates in deaths in raids that used to just cause arrests.

Click to expand...

Yes I was going to mention that as well.
I have a history book with pictures of Bonnie and Clyde before they were killed. They had an arsenal of weapons to include BARs Thompsons etc. Yes a lot of fire power was employed to bring them down but it was not a permanent fixture of law enforcement.

Those weapons employed in the 30s were every bit as deadly and powerful as today. For the most part the police did not feel the need to have permanent teams available to deal with it.

Today every police departments wants SWAT, armored vehicles, helicopters, snipers etc. Not to mention very ominous intelligence gathering technology such as license plate scanners which are used to build a data base of every automobiles movement.

What often happens is these powerful forces sit around waiting for the big event to happen where they are needed. As time drags on with no such massive emergency they are employed routinely for trivial offenses and situation. As you point out they are used for light wieght crimes and as a result people get hurt. But hey at least they justified the massive budget.

It was only a few decades ago that the norm for police serving a warrant was to knock and present the document then proceed to arrest or search. Now the norm is a no knock assault. Not a week goes by when we do not hear of yet another foul up because they only discover after the fact that they hit the wrong home or address. Or they had to kill a pet or slam someone causing a heart attack or miscarriage or even shooting the wrong person.

I agree with allowing the police what is needed to do their job but it is obviously a problem when they are becoming as much a threat to people as a criminal is.

d0gbreath said:

Good post soup!

I saw a TV documentary about the policing of the 1930s. Apparently the bank robber gangs had gotten a hold of some BAR 50s and Thompson sub-machine guns. The Police were no match using 38 stub-nosed specials. They had to upgrade their fire power just to be able to keep up with the gangs.

I suppose that what we see today is that law enforcement never wants to play catch up again.

The difference is that while Bonnie and Clyde were wanted dead of alive, the SWAT teams of today are being used in far lighter crimes. It's like they want to instill fear in the average law abiding citizen. This culminates in deaths in raids that used to just cause arrests.

Click to expand...

Ok here is some of the weapons Bonnie and CLyde had after they were killed.



The idea some seem to have that guns are more prevelant today is simply silly. Americans always had access to guns. Assault weapons of 80 years ago were as deadly as they are today.

Soupnazi630 said:

Ok here is some of the weapons Bonnie and CLyde had after they were killed.

View attachment 67166754

The idea some seem to have that guns are more prevelant today is simply silly. Americans always had access to guns. Assault weapons of 80 years ago were as deadly as they are today.

Click to expand...

Yeah, like the Thompson submachine gun (Tommy Gun/Chicago Typewriter) which hurled .45's and could have a 100-round drum.

Soupnazi630 said:

Ok here is some of the weapons Bonnie and CLyde had after they were killed.

View attachment 67166754

The idea some seem to have that guns are more prevelant today is simply silly. Americans always had access to guns. Assault weapons of 80 years ago were as deadly as they are today.

Click to expand...

colt 45 ACP 1911 is still seen by many who understand the topic as being the premier military or self defense handgun PERIOD

and those two browning automatic rifles (20 rounds of 30-06) are more powerful than either the M16 or the AK 47

a bit heavier but in terms of firepower, very few weapons you can easily carry can match it