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.

 LordofHats wrote:
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.

Maybe they don't need to kick in the door at all if it's a small amount of drugs, FFS.

 Ouze wrote:
Maybe they don't need to kick in the door at all if it's a small amount of drugs, FFS.

Didn't read the response directly above did you?

The concept of militarization is hardly the same thing as throwing around references to Nazis.

As to defining militarization, I agreed earlier with Jihadin that there are non-obvious issues as a matter of detail (e.g., equipment evaluation). We members of Dakka Dakka are not going to undertake an investigation and draft a white paper. If you're looking for a point-by-point technical evaluation, you are bound to be disappointed.

That does not, however, mean the concept has no value. Crime and war are different things. When they are conflated, this is militarization.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Maybe they don't need to kick in the door at all if it's a small amount of drugs, FFS.

Didn't read the response directly above did you?

No, after re-reading I did miss it, if you mean Ensis.

 Manchu wrote:

That does not, however, mean the concept has no value. Crime and war are different things. When they are conflated, this is militarization.

I think the biggest problem isn't equiptmen, or even tactics, but simply mindset. I think the police see themselves as much more paramilitary than they used to.

Agreed, Polonius, But when you dress them up like soldiers and give them soldier training and soldier weapons, I mean this has an effect on mindset.

 Manchu wrote:
Agreed, Polonius, But when you dress them up like soldiers and give them soldier training and soldier weapons, I mean this has an effect on mindset.

That's a good point.

 Ouze wrote:


No, after re-reading I did miss it, if you mean Ensis.

No. I mean the response where I agreed bringing SWAT into the situation in the OP is rather plainly excessive force even if they had the right house (I just find that they somehow managed to, once again, get the wrong address awe inspiring). SWAT aren't the only ones who can force their way into a building.

If you're looking for a point-by-point technical evaluation, you are bound to be disappointed.

I'm not.

That does not, however, mean the concept has no value. Crime and war are different things. When they are conflated, this is militarization.

And the "war on crime" is itself a hyperbolic term created for the purpose of politics.The traditional term for 'war on crime' is law enforcement. The conflation is fictional. Surely you don't think that if we took away the SWAT teams toys that all misuse of police power will just end. Misuse of power is not evidence that a fictional thing is actually happening.

 LordofHats wrote:
The traditional term for 'war on crime' is law enforcement.

No, it is not. "Law enforcement" and "war on crime" are different things.

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The traditional term for 'war on crime' is law enforcement.

No, it is not. "Law enforcement" and "war on crime" are different things.

Yeah. One is a fictional phrase describing a situation that isn't really happening, while the other is just par for the course.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The traditional term for 'war on crime' is law enforcement.

No, it is not. "Law enforcement" and "war on crime" are different things.

Yeah. One is a fictional phrase describing a situation that isn't really happening, while the other is just par for the course.

But I wonder which you think is which ...

 Manchu wrote:
But I wonder which you think is which ...

I ask myself the same question every time I go to Baskin Robins and wonder if they mixed up the cookies and cream with the oreo.

Its the Escalation of Force that is not in proportion to the situation.

 Jihadin wrote:
Its the Escalation of Force that is not in proportion to the situation.

I fail to see how this is a problem police forces have never encountered before, or one that can really be adequately described as 'militarized.'

My argument isn't that the cops don't use execessive force or that there isn't a lack of accountability. My argument is that throwing around fictional terminoloy whose only purpose is to inspire fear among the masses completely clouds reality. Something that we allow to happen too much in politics. You can't really sit at a table, start throwing around nonsense, and expect any progress on issues to be made.

What was the threat to warrant a stack entry and a flashbang.

 Jihadin wrote:
What was the threat to warrant a stack entry and a flashbang.

Didn't read any of my other posts in this thread did you?

I agree that you fail to see it.

Again, it is specifically "militarization" because law enforcement has been conflated with warfare.

I feel confident the conflation came before the equipment. But the equipment fulfills the conflation. And the conflation justifies the equipment. SWAT must be pretty expensive relative to its usefulness. You need a perpetual war to justify that, so we have one.

Even more troubling, we don't even need to explicitly call it a war anymore (that is, under the Obama administration) -- just like with the military-police cross-discipline effort, the omnipresent "war on terror."

It's just "the way things are/have to be."

The problem is that there are so many guns and weapons in America, anyone can be armed and houses can be full of guns, and police don't want to risk themselves so go in full force. Gun ownership is supposed to protect your freedom, but it looks increasingly like they create a prison through fear. You have children suspended from school for drawing a picture of a gun, and simple search warrants are treated like an assault on a terrorist bunker. People argue for concealed carry as they're legitimately worried they'll be robbed at gunpoint or have to prevent a spree shooter. No wonder the police are becoming militarised, it's a reaction a heavily armed populace. Pretty soon you'll be buying more guns to protect yourselves from the police.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, it is specifically "militarization" because law enforcement has been conflated with warfare.

Yeah you keep conflating it absent any evidence of real effect that calling something a war actually makes it a war.

And the conflation justifies the equipment. SWAT must be pretty expensive relative to its usefulness.

In big cities they're probably cost effective. Outside of big cities, less so, but the nature of how we fund things in the US makes it easy for places that don't need fulltime SWAT easy to get them, and hard for more nuanced solutions to be effectively implemented. End the pointless drug war and we probably wouldn't need any full time SWAT at all.

just like with the military-police cross-disicipline effort, the omnipresent "war on terror."

I find that less shocking than that saying "national security" still seems to be a free pass for all kinds of policies and programs that on paper look like terrible ideas that are just a waste of money.

 LordofHats wrote:
My argument is that throwing around fictional terminoloy whose only purpose is to inspire fear among the masses completely clouds reality.

What exactly is "fictional terminology"? Is that terminology you do not like? Is that terminology that you refuse to understand? Is that terminology that calls into question a deeply-held assumption of yours?

Militarization pretty clearly means "to become more military-like." It is a term meant to call out that these guys:eventually became these guys

 Manchu wrote:
What exactly is "fictional terminology"?

It's the creation of a term that holds no real meaning.

Militarization pretty clearly means "to become more military-like."

If I put on a vest and carry around an M4 then I'm more military like? Guess we should be concerned about the militarization of the populace, what with all the guns that are out there no- Oh wait we refuse to acknowledge that there are any negative consequences to gun rights. Right. Sorry I forgot for a moment.

My issue with the term "militarization of the police" and "war on crime" is that they don't account for anything meaningful. To become more military like? Soldiers sleep in barracks should I find a bunch of guys sharing an apartment alarming? Should we be concerned that a police station has a bunk room? They have guns guess they're going full Delta force. It's a definition so broad it carries no meaning and it uses terms that cloud real issues.

Further, they're often used in fallicious arguments by presenting a situation in a false light, making it harder to deal with real issues like excessive force or the appropriation of equipment that isn't needed, or a lack of accountability. Turns out that when you use a fallicious argument it becomes really easy for opponents to go from attacking the argument to attacking any problems that the argument might account of while it's busy peddling nonsense.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
No wonder the police are becoming militarised, it's a reaction a heavily armed populace.

Absolutely false.

Private ownership of weapons does not necessitate militarized police. As far as I can tell, SWAT teams are meant to confront criminals with paramilitary capacity. That simply does not describe gun owners in the US, although I don't doubt it is hard for folks in places like the UK to understand that.

The real issue of militarization comes down to the attitude in the US towards drugs (and terrorism), not guns.

@LoH:

Again, waving "excessive force" and "lack of accountability" around as if they explain themselves. I have been using the concept of militarization in a clear and consistent way that could actually explain why some police officers act with excessive force and how how accountability is undermined.

The trouble is you really don't understand the difference between fighting a war and preserving the peace.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, waving "excessive force" and "lack of accountability" around as if they explain themselves.

Excessive force, like how officials regularly use SWAT in situations that don't call for SWAT, shouldn't really need explaining to anyone here, given that you and others have already identified them as problems and given them some context.

I have been using the concept of militarization in a clear and consistent way that could actually explain why some police officers act with excessive force and how how accountability is undermined.

I've also been rather clear and consistent in my claims that you have no evidence that this is something that is really happening, let alone that its even an issue that should be addressed over its underlying causes.

The trouble is you really don't understand the difference between fighting a war and preserving the peace.

You keep throwing out that hyperbole and pretending it has meaning. I can go wage war on the termites in my wall (I don't actually ahve termites in my wall) and it would still make a 'war on pests' a purely symbolic phrase.

"War on drugs" is not purely symbolic. It is a set of policies and approaches. Even you seem to recognize this much:

 LordofHats wrote:
End the pointless drug war and we probably wouldn't need any full time SWAT at all.

In other words, the only reason we need to have pretend soldiers is to fight a pretend war.

 Manchu wrote:
"War on drugs" is not purely symbolic.

It's symbolic in that it's not really a war. You complain that we can't call the war on crime a war anymore. Really, I find it scarier that people are actually incapable of distinguishing the phrase and what it represents from war.

If this term has no meaning, why do you think the Obama administration has stopped using the phrase "war on drugs" then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's symbolic in that it's not really a war.

We can agree there. It isn't really a war. That is why creating polices that use that analogy as their foundation (i.e., militarization) fosters problems like excessive force and lack of accountability.

 Manchu wrote:
If this term has no meaning, why do you think the Obama administration has stopped using the phrase "war on drugs" then?

Because the entire thing has become a political quagmire that no politician wants to be overly embroiled in, especially since as we've seen with weed, the tide is turning, and neither party wants to become the 'anti-freedom party' if and when the issue of legalization really start to catch more steam. Same reason the parties are moving away from the 'illegal' part of illegal immigrants. Political parties, as much as we like to mock them, aren't really stupid. They're quite intillegent as organized bodies.

Sort of. The administration says it is the wrong approach because drug addiction is better understood as a disease. Fighting a war on people with a disease just doesn't resonate.

Now, the scary part I mentioned before is this change in language has not been accompanied by a change in approach.

That is to say, we are past the point of the War on Drugs being purely symbolic. This "warfare" is now the default.

 Polonius wrote:
It's a cliche, but it's true that when you have a hammer, all of your problems start looking like nails.

I believe that this is a good analogy. In some situations I would agree that the police response should be SWAT based (e.g. an active shooter), but in cases like this which concern a small amount of drugs and a no-knock warrant I don't see the need for such tactics

 Manchu wrote:
B-b-but druuuuugs!

Legalize, regulate, and tax them

 Manchu wrote:
The things SWAT does, or at least should be doing, seem like military operations to me. It therefore seems to me that the military could do them.

Here we run into the problem of posse comitatus, not to mention the differences in focus and operating under very different laws

 Manchu wrote:
Now, the scary part I mentioned before is this change in language has not been accompanied by a change in approach.

Well they probably don't really care about the change as a matter of 'the right thing to do.' Enlightened self interest is still self interest (and really the political parties kind of scratch the bottom of the enlightened barrel).

That is to say, we are past the point of the War on Drugs being purely symbolic. This "warfare" is now the default.

I fail to see how the police pursuing criminals and criminal activity shouldn't be the default. Laws are on the books, mountains of money over decades has been poured into enforcing them, they're not really just gonna stop and I'm not sure we can realistically expect them too.