Switch Theme:

Militarization of Police  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I'm not sure the courts can do it. Real de-militarization requires an acknowledgement that the police are already militarized, which to my mind implicates legislative action.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






What would meet the criteria of "military equipment" to demilitarize LEO though. Some things are obvious something are not. 9mm Beratta's are a issue weapon in the military as are M4/M16 A2's

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Jihadin wrote:
Some things are obvious something are not.
Agreed.

   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 Manchu wrote:
And so we militarize police as an end run around the law.


We give some of them the military grade equipment they need to do their jobs; and train them in the use of that equipment.

But, to reiterate, the issue is not the existence of SWAT, but the way it is employed and (to add) the training such LEOs undergo. Training which should include "Do not bounce a flashbang into a room that may contain non-hostiles.", a point Jihadin has already made.

 Manchu wrote:

If there is a need to use military force in the criminal context then elected officials should have to call on the actual military and take responsibility for explaining the need.


Elected officials will doubtlessly be called to task for this action, they simply won't be nationally elected.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

One could point out that SWAT units in heavy armor with flashbangs and big guns become a necessity in a country where criminals frequently carry potent and readily available weapons and that the issue as others suggest isn't their existence but the police's nasty habit of frequently busting into the wrong house.

I suspect as in the past however such a thing would be pointless.

   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

I should prefer that officials have to be persuasive before a harm occurs rather than after. Convincing the military to intervene and having that albatross around your neck entails much more responsibility than "mistakes may have been made" investigations that often go nowhere.

The 2nd Amendment in no way necessitates the militarization of the police. Private citizens owned and used firearms (including criminally) long before the development of SWAT.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 20:29:39


   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

So your solution to the militarization of the police is to ask the real military to go around shooting up people? Ignoring that that doesn't even remotely solve public officials exercising police powers with improper information (as presumably the military will simply act as SWAT teams do now, unless we're giving them the power to pick which doors they will and won't kick down) how on earth is letting the real military run around a civil improvement over cops dressed in military style?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Manchu wrote:
The 2nd Amendment in no way necessitates the militarization of the police. Private citizens owned and used firearms (including criminally) long before the development of SWAT.


It has nothing to do with the second amendment. When you're dealing with criminal organizations like the Cartel, who often find acquiring automatic weapons easy, sending cops in with revolvers and clean pressed shirts is madness.

And again, the idea of an automatic rifle was foreign to the Founders. Expecting them to make rules able to account for the use of such weapons, far more potent than anything they had in their time, is silly.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/25 20:34:09


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Manchu wrote:
I should prefer that officials have to be persuasive before a harm occurs rather than after. Convincing the military to intervene and having that albatross around your neck entails much more responsibility than "mistakes may have been made" investigations that often go nowhere.


There's the crux of it. LEO can fall back on the excuse "of not properly trained" to get out of this situation. They do not do a "Risk Assessment" before kicking in the door. They ,most time it appears, assume a level of danger that justifies questionable actions. The group that hurt the kid in the crib totally lack situational awareness to being a van with a family head count sticker on the back window was parked (drive way?) out front. It just seems they were, LEO, itching for action.

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 LordofHats wrote:
So your solution to the militarization of the police is to ask the real military to go around shooting up people?
Yes.

I would rather have elected officials have to ask, in front of everyone, that the real military attack the populace than for us to pretend that paramilitary police forces waging constant warfare against the populace is normal and okay.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Manchu wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:
So your solution to the militarization of the police is to ask the real military to go around shooting up people?
Yes.

I would rather have elected officials have to ask, in front of everyone, that the real military attack the populace than for us to pretend that paramilitary police forces waging constant warfare against the populace is normal and okay.


That would be an unlawful order.

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

As things stand, yes it is. And there is a good reason why it is unlawful to order a military force to attack the populace.

Assembling a military force, certainly a force better armed and trained than many of the forces our military fights, and calling it a police formation is essentially a game of pretend to get around that good reason.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Jihadin wrote:

There's the crux of it. LEO can fall back on the excuse "of not properly trained" to get out of this situation. They do not do a "Risk Assessment" before kicking in the door. They ,most time it appears, assume a level of danger that justifies questionable actions. The group that hurt the kid in the crib totally lack situational awareness to being a van with a family head count sticker on the back window was parked (drive way?) out front. It just seems they were, LEO, itching for action.


I think we agree on this. I hate to paint the SWAT guys in a terrible light, but this really seemed like they enjoyed playing soldier. Which is scary when its all live.

You could argue that our troops in Iraq were more worried about collateral damage than these SWAT teams.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA



That you don't think that's silly is hilarious XD

I would rather have elected officials have to ask, in front of everyone, that the real military attack the populace than for us to pretend that paramilitary police forces waging constant warfare against the populace is normal and okay.


Except that's not what's happening (hyperbole out the extreme XD). You're solution just trades the police kicking in the wrong door to the military kicking in the wrong door, a complete non change. This isn't a problem with the police per se but a problem with the attitudes and accountability of public officials who hand down their orders (and whoever is supposed to be keeping them in line naturally), something you're change doesn't really fix without giving the military sweeping police powers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 20:49:22


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

LH: stop, breathe, and read for comprehension.

The change I am suggesting is between assuming it's okay to use military force against the people to "fight crime" and not assuming that.

You are complaining about hypothetically giving the military sweeping police powers.

The actual, real life issue we currently need to deal with is that the police have sweeping military powers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/25 20:53:21


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






We were/are under a ROE that is enforced. We also enforce fire discipline. Comparing LEO to the Military they, LEO, are a wild bunch. They operate, LEO, under the impression that they are not subject to ramification of their actions. If they are then Prosecution is cast as the "Bad People"

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

 Jihadin wrote:
Comparing LEO to the Military they, LEO, are a wild bunch.
I certainly believe this. It seems to me that if the military did become involved in some kind of domestic police action, it would be a damn sight more careful than the cops are. The US military is overall pretty sensitive to how it behaves abroad. I can only imagine every i would be dotted and t crossed at home.

The military makes for a bad police force, however, because it is meant to enact war. Police are supposed to preserve peace.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/25 20:58:12


   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 dementedwombat wrote:
I'd rather have excessive force than have people who volunteer to protect citizens and uphold laws injured by dangerous criminals.


"We had to destroy the village in order to save it".


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Polonius wrote:

I think we agree on this. I hate to paint the SWAT guys in a terrible light, but this really seemed like they enjoyed playing soldier. Which is scary when its all live.

You could argue that our troops in Iraq were more worried about collateral damage than these SWAT teams.



Honestly, I think this also comes down to the SWAT in question. In areas like LA or NYC, the largest of large police departments have the money that they can spend on recruiting and properly training former SEALs, Green Beret's and whatnot from the SOF community. These guys are used to the sort of training and restraint needed in certain situations.

In smaller towns, as in the OP, they probably say, "Ohh, Bobby-Joe was our Quarterback in school, he's a good athlete, he can shoot real good, and he wants to be on the police force. Let's put him in the SWAT because he's a good athlete and can shoot real good", and as a result, you get a guy like "Bobby-Joe" who wouldn't make it through the first day of LA's SWAT training not only on the "SWAT" team, but probably leading as well.
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

The change I am suggesting is between assuming it's okay to use military force against the people to "fight crime" and not assuming that.


Until the police start drone striking their targets and leveling entire buildings, this is nothing more than hyperbole. A bunch of guys in body armor with mean looking guns is not 'military.' Flashbangs, being typically non-lethal are a great public tool for incapacitating threats over killing them, something that should be embraced. Given the nature of crime in the US, maintaining such force has become a necessity. We can accept that our we can live in fairytale land. You can't embrace the rights of the populace to own guns without accepting an immediate consequence, and you can't deal with criminals readily having access to very mean guns by their own means without turning out a meaner looking police officer.

The problem isn't that the police threw a flashbang into a room. It's that they threw it into the wrong room in a house they seemingly had no business being in. That requires a change of attitude in a lot of people and accountability further up the line. Attacking the equipment is backwards.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 21:01:52


   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

As I said, militarization of the police is a not a necessary consequence of private ownership of firearms.

Also, I am not attacking the equipment. I am attacking the mindset that tends to go along with certain equipment and training. The equipment is just one facet of militarization.
 Ouze wrote:
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it".
"And until we destroy another one with drones, militarization is just hyperbole."

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/25 21:11:52


   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Manchu wrote:
As I said, militarization of the police is a not a necessary consequence of private ownership of firearms.


That's naive (though as I said earlier, this isn't strictly a consequence of private ownership either, as the Cartels and gangs, will find and use illegal weapons regardless of what the rest of us have).

I am attacking the a mindset that tends to go along with certain equipment and training.


Can you demonstrate that the mindset is the problem rather than accountability and way that mindset is employed? Cause attacking SWAT seems like a complete distraction from the real problem while flowering up language to fear monger people into simply accepting a false premise.

   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

I also agree that ratcheting down the level of force is desirable, but unlikely. No elected official wants to be seen as soft on crime. Although you're right - this isn't a second amendment issue - i nonetheless find that the lack of any serious changes to how we do... well, anything - after Sandy Hook is a compelling argument that dead children, even dead white ones, are simply not a significant motivator for societal change for the American people.

We live with levels of violence that are nonexistent elsewhere in the first world, and we accept that. Our police officers riding MRAPS, wearing molle vests and toting M4s are simply part and parcel of that.


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

@LoH:

What is naive is to imagine that there is only one possible response to a problem. Your ideology is showing.

As to the rest of your post, please read the OP and then consider this:
 Manchu wrote:
If we talk of war on crime, the implication is police are soldiers. And that makes civilians (including babies) enemy combatants.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 21:18:24


   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 LordofHats wrote:
Can you demonstrate that the mindset is the problem rather than accountability and way that mindset is employed? Cause attacking SWAT seems like a complete distraction from the real problem while flowering up language to fear monger people into simply accepting a false premise.


Another false premise would be the idea of the cartels using exotic, automatic military hardware on police officers inside the US thus justifying said militarization, where such HEAT-type scenarios remain almost totally within the purview of the movies. LA shootout aside, they simply do not actually happen.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

@Ouze:

What you are describing is the failure of American conservatism. To wit, it is more important to appear "tough on crime" than to curb the excessive use of force by government agents at its root.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 21:21:37


   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Manchu wrote:
What is naive is to imagine that there is only one possible response to a problem. Your ideology is showing.


Pretend that's true (really, it's like no one here remembers the contents of any thread past a week).

And that makes civilians (including babies) enemy combatants.


Keep using that hyperbole and pretend it means something.

In a war on crime, criminals are the enemy, in which case the typical civilian is still a non-combatant (in this silly rhetorical argument people throw up). I read the OP and my response wasn't "why are the cops using flashbangs and mean looking guns" it was "why are they in that house?" The improper use of force is the real problem, the force used in the OP itself being demonstratably necessary in the modern US.

A discussion can be hand about a lot of fine details. Armored vehicles for example, seem like overkill in a lot of places and situations. Outside of major metro areas (where their usefulness in riot control is practical) they make no sense, but why some county sheriffs are buying them seems to simply be a case of wanting cool toys cause cool. Cops in body armor with M4's and flashbangs on the other are not, and attacking their existence as is often done is bonkers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 21:31:43


   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 Manchu wrote:
@Ouze:

What you are describing is the failure of American conservatism. To wit, it is more important to appear "tough on crime" than to curb the excessive use of force by government agents at its root.


I hate to get partisan, but alas, I think you're correct here. There's a bit of an "Only Nixon could go to China" aspect to this issue.

The rising police state is one area that could prove fruitful for a conservative/liberal alliance, but that seems to have not really taken root.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Solahma






RVA

@LoH:

You keep saying "improper use of force" without ever accounting for what is improper and why it might have been applied in a case like this.

It's not just a matter of being at the wrong house. Even if they were at the right house, they're looking for a small amount of drugs. So they bring SWAT? And kick down the door in the middle of the night? And scream at a woman concerned for her baby, whom they have just severely injured?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
I hate to get partisan, but alas, I think you're correct here.
It's not so much a partisan attack but a partisan lament. I can think of nothing so seriously dangerous to the long term health of the public good in the US as the increasing irrelevance of authentic (i.e., non-neoliberal) conservatism.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/25 21:40:01


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 LordofHats wrote:
I read the OP and my response wasn't "why are the cops using flashbangs and mean looking guns" it was "why are they in that house?" The improper use of force is the real problem, the force used in the OP itself being demonstratably necessary in the modern US.


And this is what other people are also getting at... There definitely seems to be a mentality of "I have a badge, and a cool gun, I NEED to kick in a door to use this cool gun"

If the police, in this situation only had their kevlar vest, pistol and "pressed shirt" they'd probably knock on the door, see if so-and-so was home, and if he wasn't (which in the OP, he wasnt in that house), they'd tell the family, "please contact us if he does return here" or something to that effect. It's a more polite and civil way of dealing with the situation. (and you can tell when someone is lying when they say "he aint here", that aint hard to do)
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Manchu wrote:
You keep saying "improper use of force" without ever accounting for what is improper and why it might have been applied in a case like this.


Yeah people keep throwing out 'militarization of the police' without ever defining what militarization means or how the phrase is really supposed to mean anything at all.

It's not just a matter of being at the wrong house. Even if they were at the right house, they're looking for a small amount of drugs. So they bring SWAT?


Yes, a good question.

And kick down the door in the middle of the night?


You prefer they kick down the door in the middle of the day? Come on. The above question is extremely valid, but this one is silly. Preferably, taking their suspects while they're asleep and unarmed is preferable to the middle of the day where they could run or arm themselves and start a shootout.

And scream at a woman concerned for her baby, whom they have just severely injured?


I get that most people (even cops) don't like being told they're wrong, but the cops in particular seem to have a really bad issue with it. But then people throw all kinds of nonsense at them like "nazis" and "militarization" at them all the time so its kind of hard to sit them down and have a real intervention with all the gak coming from so many mouths.

   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: