Posted on Aug 21, 2014
What are your thoughts on “Militarizing the Police?”
20.3K
404
208
12
12
0
Ferguson
Police
Responses: 83
2
2
0
Police are never liked or needed... until you need them, then they can't get there fast enough.
To be a civilized country you need the Rule of Law (ROL), which means you need police, courts, and prisons.
So, we need police, and they need to be armed to deal with the threats they now face decisively. Things have changed and wooden "night sticks" and pistols, are not really the best solution for bad guys with a wide variety of weapons.
The idea is to have a clear advantage over the enemy in terms of manpower and weaponry.
Remember, there are actual bad guys out there, hence the need for a viable ROL.
To be a civilized country you need the Rule of Law (ROL), which means you need police, courts, and prisons.
So, we need police, and they need to be armed to deal with the threats they now face decisively. Things have changed and wooden "night sticks" and pistols, are not really the best solution for bad guys with a wide variety of weapons.
The idea is to have a clear advantage over the enemy in terms of manpower and weaponry.
Remember, there are actual bad guys out there, hence the need for a viable ROL.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Modernization of both weaponry and equipment is responsible for the training/equipping of "militaristic" equipment and the necessity of such. The threat police face is often not unlike the insurgency we face overseas, in addition to the fact that overseas insurgency is not exclusively overseas. As weapons and ammo became more sophisticated, so did armor and tactics to defeat the threat. "Cop Killers" and armor piercing ammo hit the streets, so the police responded in kind. The war on drugs and open borders created an unlimited supply and demand for weaponry and insurgent style gang warfare that populates the streets of most modestly sized metropolitan areas. We rely most simply on minimally trained police forces to combat this problem that continues to grow more dangerous annually despite the outfitting of military equipment.
The bottom line though, is that they use it because it works. On their worst day, a policeman will engage in a fight for his/her life on behalf of a typically disinterested citizenry. To do this, I want them equipped at a minimum with the same equipment I have to do the same. I wouldn't go into a firefight without the best equipment I could get a hold of, and wouldn't expect anyone else to either, no matter how scary the ignorant believe it to be.
The bottom line though, is that they use it because it works. On their worst day, a policeman will engage in a fight for his/her life on behalf of a typically disinterested citizenry. To do this, I want them equipped at a minimum with the same equipment I have to do the same. I wouldn't go into a firefight without the best equipment I could get a hold of, and wouldn't expect anyone else to either, no matter how scary the ignorant believe it to be.
(2)
(0)
SPC Carl K.
I will agree with your assertion that police are responding with appropriate defense to offense received. However, what are your views of using these forces in situations where it is not completely necessary? There are times when the cops' intelligence is wrong and they hit the wrong house, with repercussions that are less than desirable. There are also instances when someone is killed at the wrong house, and the cops are not held accountable. Are no-knock warrants really necessary? Are SWAT teams being used in more situations than they should be? Does ever search warrant require a militarized force?
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I don't know that you want a huge discussion on the subject, but much of what you mention is an unfortunate symptom of an inappropriate and horribly mishandled war on drugs by the FG. That said, no knock warrant execution and utilization of specialized fugitive teams/swat teams are a necessary function of law enforcement if we desire to detain violent offenders in society. Unfortunately mistakes happen sometimes, but nothing can be done in any capacity or situation on this earth to prevent all negative outcomes. It is just impossible, so we have to accept that accidents happen. We can paint LE in a corner and publicly admonish Police via media at every opportunity, or we can look objectively at the realities that surround the subject matter. Often times (more often than innocent civilians are killed) Policemen are accidentally killed by negligent drivers or in the general non-violent execution of their public duties, with repercussions that are also (obviously) less than desirable. Is our (as a citizenry) reaction to this reality typically an acceptance that unfortunate accidents happen? By nature of their role, undesirable things will happen simply due to the presence of a police force. I dont think that negates the need.
Do we as an Army ever hard-knock the wrong door and kill those who maybe didn't qualify for lethal targeting? What is your assessment of the repercussions that come from those situations? Is it most often just an unfortunate hazard of the job?
Do we as an Army ever hard-knock the wrong door and kill those who maybe didn't qualify for lethal targeting? What is your assessment of the repercussions that come from those situations? Is it most often just an unfortunate hazard of the job?
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
A. When a police officer is killed by "negligent homicide" it is comparable because it is the same fundamental responsibility that places the office in both situations. If you can say that the individual killed during the execution of a warrant would still be alive had the police not been there, I can say the same for the officer struck roadside by a vehicle driven by a drunk or distracted driver. What is intellectually dishonest is to not acknowledge that in both scenarios the Policeman is discharging his/her duties on behalf of the public, and by proxy the public told them to go do whatever it was they were doing when the accidental death occurred. What is dishonest is when people absolve themselves of any and all responsibility when those that risk everything they have to do what we expect them to do experience a negative outcome. The two are quite comparable, with the exception of the statistical fact that far more civil servants are killed by drivers who won't stop texting than people who are sleeping when police decide to just show up and shoot them. The latter is still a very rare occurrence, of which the underlying factors are not remotely similar between two incidents.
B. I understand that civil servants are civilians (technically), but the authority and responsibility that separates a licensed and commissioned peace officer and a "civilian" is far more profound than that of the title 10 Soldier and civilian. It is in that nature and regard that I discern between PO and civilian, and for illustrative purposes, because they are not the same. Given that I have served as both LEO and obviously Soldier, I have a decent grasp of the relationship. Understand that bestowing the power of arrest and detention on someone very much separates them from the rest of civilians.
B. I understand that civil servants are civilians (technically), but the authority and responsibility that separates a licensed and commissioned peace officer and a "civilian" is far more profound than that of the title 10 Soldier and civilian. It is in that nature and regard that I discern between PO and civilian, and for illustrative purposes, because they are not the same. Given that I have served as both LEO and obviously Soldier, I have a decent grasp of the relationship. Understand that bestowing the power of arrest and detention on someone very much separates them from the rest of civilians.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
That isn't actually what you specifically stated at all, but Ill run with it. The scenario you described is an accidental death, and isn't much different from aforementioned examples of negligence. The thing you are having trouble seeing, and I think it is because you just desire to win an argument, is that things only appear a certain way to you because you are looking at only one perspective. That is that police are generally bad, incompetent and without ethic. You say that the negligent death of the Policeman on the side of the road and that of the citizen in the "wrong house wrong time," aren't comparable but they are. You see it your way because to you the Policeman has made himself the bad guy, but the truth is that the only reason the Police was at either location was to act by proxy on our behalf. It is extremely rare for the Police to execute a warrant at an incorrect house and then kill the occupant, but if it happened you cannot argue that the officer set out to just go and murder someone. Nor did the homeowner who is awoken by mistaken Police decide intentionally that he was going to kill a cop when acting in perceived self-defense. And for the most part the drunk or distracted driver who runs over a Policeman did not set out to do so. These are all comparable because they are incidents that happen during the discharge of duties as a LEO. The practices used by LE are by and large necessary to combat crime at a rate that is acceptable or necessary to community. Outcome isn't always perfect, but that isn't attributed to the Policemen being inherintly bad or overly militant. It is that way because outcome is flawed in everything. The reason Police aren't as well received as medics is because an EMT doesn't show up with foce to strip freedom from those to whom the phone call for help pertains. It isn't because they set themselves up to be perceived a certain way, it is because majority of contact with Police officers is punitive. It is the nature of the relationship that sets the LE side of civil service apart negatively, not bad Police Officers. Are there bad apples doing stupid things? Of course but that is the exception not the rule. There are shitty EMTs and Firemen as well. Speaking of which, I know you are dead set on being right about this so I will let you think what you will...but definitively speaking the term civilian applies to the populous that does not fall into the category of Military, Law Enforcement or Fireman. The UCMJ and punishment for not coming to work is not what distinguishes civilian from non-civilian.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Basically this sums up everything I have to say, very simply and very succinctly.
http://imgur.com/gallery/fpYzl
http://imgur.com/gallery/fpYzl
U.S. imgurians, lets talk about this.
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet.
(2)
(0)
TSgt Phillip L.
Good points are made in that link. Notice the big difference between the professional military and the LE pictured in Ferguson.
(1)
(0)
SSG Tim Everett
Notice the Guard guys not even straying near their weapons, which we can see were pistols. As opposed to the military-grade hardware that we typically carry to, say, a warzone to, say, kill lots of terrorists.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Are we talking like SWAT for all cops? If I was to see these guys dressed like this on the streets 24/7 it would be unnerving. Should police have the tools to take on crazies with automatic weapons? Absolutely! Police are not the enemy. Looters and rioters are criminals, not political activists. When someone is flipping over my squad car, I hope they expect a beanbag to the chest. If that angers them enough to attack me and put the lives of my teammates in jeopardy, they better hope that I have a good supply of non-lethal rounds. These poor cops. People hold up a video camera and it is almost like hitting the police with red kryptonite. Protect the public, protect the property, enforce the law......and expect to be crucified in the public when it is caught on tape. Where is Robocop when you need him. "I'd buy that for a dollar."
(2)
(0)
SFC Boots Attaway
I do not agree with having the everyday street cop looking like a storm trooper I do agree with SWAT and riot units being protected with proper IBAS and weapons. If we have the average street cop looking like SWAT then let's do away with them and put the army on the street, same thing. DICTATORSHIP/ police state
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
But us every day cops need the equipment (and training) to step in immediately and handle a situation (ASR, Bank robbery etc), so patrol rifles and shotguns in the car, and additional higher threat level protective gear as well. ERT/SWAT in mid and small time Depts are not always full time and on constant standby, like Dallas, NY, Nashville, LA. etc are, so those smaller Depts teams can take an hour to arrive.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Police speciality units do train in a military form. Those who think police don't need military type weapons are clueless. Criminals are better armed and getting more aggressive every day. Law Enforcement needs to be steps ahead. Again, tactics are a priority. Be safe!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The militarization of the police is what has led police to be ever more confrontational and rely on their guns first.
We need a return to the "peace officer" concept. Instead of the entire police force having military-grade assault weapons and armored personnel carriers, we need a return to when most police lived and worked in the same community, and there is a small, specialized team (SWAT) to deal with things that are actually high-threat.
We need a return to the "peace officer" concept. Instead of the entire police force having military-grade assault weapons and armored personnel carriers, we need a return to when most police lived and worked in the same community, and there is a small, specialized team (SWAT) to deal with things that are actually high-threat.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
It's safer than it ever has been to be a police officer in America. This argument is patently false.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/30/1348358/-The-Unprecedented-Historical-Safety-of-Being-a-US-Cop-with-data-from-1900-2013
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/30/1348358/-The-Unprecedented-Historical-Safety-of-Being-a-US-Cop-with-data-from-1900-2013
The Unprecedented Historical Safety of Being a US Cop, with data from 1900-2013
Has policing become more or less dangerous over the past few decades, or the past century? Given all the attention to crime, shootings, gang violence, meth-heads, 'home-invasions', weapons ...
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
And then thin year, the stats are rising for line of duty deaths, looking at a near record high. Although in the end the record won't be broken, the manner in which officers are killed is becoming more violent and more overt. Gangs have put out open orders for hits on ANY Police officer, Cartels have a standing order to kill any Police Officer who impedes their "business", 1% MC's have a standing order to jump and disarm, then kill if necessary, any Police officer they encounter, so they can escape (even over a traffic infraction), but only if the odds are in their favor. Which is why you will some time see two or three cars on a stop, to keep the odds on Our Favor. The Drugs mentioned, Meth is rising in TN still. So "Patently false", imo, as a person doing the job, is not factually 100% correct. True some science backs the basic premise, but some other science, weakens that point too. IMO, the reason some of the #'s are down, is DUE TOO us HAVING the equipment and training, as well as the procedures in place, to make the odds in our favor, and not the criminals.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
FYI, Dailykos is not a none biased "news" source, they aren't even really a news, they are a prolific anti cop, anti military page. But, it is good to read it once in a while, so you can be reminded of the mind set that dislikes you, and me, for being ones who will stand up and volunteer to do a job others will only complain about the manner in how you do it.
(0)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
So are you disputing the data from the census bureau regarding the number of police killed per million, or the number of police killed total? Because it's fine if you don't like the writers at DailyKos. I get it, and I largely agree...but the data is the data, from the US Census Bureau and the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund. http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html
The only time we had fewer officers killed than 2013 in the last hundred years was during WWII, in 1943 and 1944.
The only time we had fewer officers killed than 2013 in the last hundred years was during WWII, in 1943 and 1944.
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund: Officer Deaths by Year
Information, news, updates, history, tributes to fallen and present law officers, online nominations for the Memorial and online search of the Memorial for names and photos of fallen law officers. Includes online catalogue of mementos and online donations.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I know where the police can get A LOT of "observation" helicopters for $1 a pop.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
SFC Mark Merino I am fully against federalizing/militarizing the police, but I am all over those helicopters for $1. Where can I get one? That's cheaper than an RC helicopter.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Much like the military is drifting by generation, values and socioeconomic class from the population it serves and comes from the police forces in the United States are also...more children of police become police officers and fewer from the general population, ethnic, socioeconomic and gender differences are also becoming wider. They generally value rule of law in a culture that has begun to devalue its actual practice. During the Vietnam war, social movements here at home drove a distrust into the general public and especially vulnerable populations for police members. Levels of corruption and failures are widely publicized which continues to reinforce this distrust. The motorization and mechanization of the police combined with budget and force cuts also removed the beat cop from communities so that communication and trusting relationships are not built. This distancing has created a distrust and even dislike of the general population within the police forces in many locations; especially those that have high rates of violence against police officers.
Militarizing the police is NEVER the right approach to ensuring law enforcement due the sociological and psychological signals it perpetuates.
Planning for the military to back up the police in large scale is also the wrong approach.
"Perception is reality" takes on a whole new meaning here. How do these two concepts combined not force the citizenry of the United States to see the police and military as adversaries rather than as protectors? How do they not help conspiracy theories to flourish that the government wants to "control" them much like the brownshirts of Nazi Germany?
Militarizing the police is NEVER the right approach to ensuring law enforcement due the sociological and psychological signals it perpetuates.
Planning for the military to back up the police in large scale is also the wrong approach.
"Perception is reality" takes on a whole new meaning here. How do these two concepts combined not force the citizenry of the United States to see the police and military as adversaries rather than as protectors? How do they not help conspiracy theories to flourish that the government wants to "control" them much like the brownshirts of Nazi Germany?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
There have always been militarized parts of every police force, just as there are traffic divisions, patrol divisions, etc. We all know the more militaristic divisions under different names: SWAT, TAC, SRT, etc. They run the high risk warrants, stand offs, hostage situations, etc. The things that the average patrol officer in the squad car doesn't do.
I think the main two factors which make people wonder about how militarized law enforcement agencies are getting is this:
1) Media/internet/Facebook makes people more aware of them than before
2) The situations facing our law enforcement today
The world we live in today is by no means peaceful, we know this as well if not better than most. There are real dangers and threats here at home. We rely on law enforcement to handle these situations. In order to ensure THEIR own safety, they have the skills and tools to perform the task they are presented with.
From my personal stand point, due to my father having been in law enforcement over 35 years now, 17 of which on the Dallas Police SWAT team, these highly trained units are vital. They are not full of people who are monsters that want to drag everyone by their hair or infringe on your rights. At the end of the day, they're just like us: husbands, wives, mothers, fathers and so on. We as a society cannot entrust someone to do a job but deny them the tools to do it, or make them do it with their hands tied. That in itself is an injustice.
There will always be 'bad' people in honorable jobs. Like the military's problem children (DUI, drugs, domestic violence, etc), law enforcement agencies are no different. When these people are identified, like the military, they are reprimanded and often times at the very least lose their job.
Today more focus is given to the bad decisions or abuses of power/authority, than is given to the bravery and hard work these men and women dedicate their lives to. Just like how the news likes to report on airstrikes missing a mark and getting civilians...what the news doesn't mention are the Soldiers that protected a child in a TIC, the humanitarian aid that saved someone from starving, etc.
Bad news sells, happy endings don't.
I think the main two factors which make people wonder about how militarized law enforcement agencies are getting is this:
1) Media/internet/Facebook makes people more aware of them than before
2) The situations facing our law enforcement today
The world we live in today is by no means peaceful, we know this as well if not better than most. There are real dangers and threats here at home. We rely on law enforcement to handle these situations. In order to ensure THEIR own safety, they have the skills and tools to perform the task they are presented with.
From my personal stand point, due to my father having been in law enforcement over 35 years now, 17 of which on the Dallas Police SWAT team, these highly trained units are vital. They are not full of people who are monsters that want to drag everyone by their hair or infringe on your rights. At the end of the day, they're just like us: husbands, wives, mothers, fathers and so on. We as a society cannot entrust someone to do a job but deny them the tools to do it, or make them do it with their hands tied. That in itself is an injustice.
There will always be 'bad' people in honorable jobs. Like the military's problem children (DUI, drugs, domestic violence, etc), law enforcement agencies are no different. When these people are identified, like the military, they are reprimanded and often times at the very least lose their job.
Today more focus is given to the bad decisions or abuses of power/authority, than is given to the bravery and hard work these men and women dedicate their lives to. Just like how the news likes to report on airstrikes missing a mark and getting civilians...what the news doesn't mention are the Soldiers that protected a child in a TIC, the humanitarian aid that saved someone from starving, etc.
Bad news sells, happy endings don't.
(2)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
There is a difference between having a specialized team for those divisions, and having every officer in an MRAP with an M-16 and under-barrel grenade launcher.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google