EricC85, I can usually agree or understand most of your talking points in this forum, but it's not the case when it comes to this topic.
The threat that police have to face in today's society is vastly different from when I wore the uniform (late 80's). Today people have the information and communication at their fingertips (internet/smartphones) that gives them a tactical advantage when it comes to domestic violence/terrorism. It is also far too easy to obtain serious weaponry via the black market. Being proactive rather than reactive when it comes to giving our police the tools needed to address potential threats is not a bad thing.
Also, I'll let you in on a little secret. Military tactics/training/weapons/techniques has been taught to police even as far back as when I was a police officer. I had the opportunity to train with our department's Rapid Response Unit (SWAT team). Guess where our training took place? Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, NM. There were multiple police agencies that participated from both the State of New Mexico as well as police from out-of-state. Guess who conducted the training? Instructors from the DOD that also train military police and special forces.
I get that you are for smaller government and personal responsibility. In most cases I can agree. However, there are some cases where government needs to be depended on to ensure certain things.
You strike me as someone who has a problem with police because you think that they have so much "power and authority" over you. The fact is that they don't. I would even go out on a limb and say that police actually lose power and authority because of the liability issue that they face each and every time they make a decision. When I refer to putting the uniform on makes a police officer a target, it's not just about violence against the officer. The possibility of civil action is a very real and very common threat, and one that is not publicized very often. It does happen.
As a military veteran, I view police officers, firefighters and paramedics the same way that I view my current and former brothers and sisters of our armed forces.
It's good that police have military grade equipment for when it's needed. But when they don tactical gear at the least provocation, or for pure intimidation purposes, then it needs to be controlled.
There, I think that sums things up beautifully. You're welcome.
Quote:It's good that police have military grade equipment for when it's needed. But when they don tactical gear at the least provocation, or for pure intimidation purposes, then it needs to be controlled.
There, I think that sums things up beautifully. You're welcome.
Intimidation purposes is in fact a tactical technique. What do you mean by "least provocation"? Is it during a traffic stop or is it when people start rioting and looting?
Quote:Intimidation purposes is in fact a tactical technique. What do you mean by "least provocation"? Is it during a traffic stop or is it when people start rioting and looting?
There were some examples cited in one of the previous posts of complete overreaction by a law enforcement agency to conduct a relatively mundane task. I understand the need for LEOs to protect themselves, but I see examples watching the news and COPS where force is used when some simple diplomacy and tact would have sufficed. I have rolled through a sobriety checkpoint that had guys in full tactical gear standing to the side. I don't think that's necessary. Rather than projecting an image of competence, it conveys a definite police-state feel.
I was in the Moe's on SR 13 (San Jose) in Julington Creek @ Racetrack Rd with my two boys.
Daddy has guns. plenty of guns. Carries one just about everywhere he goes....
Cop walks in, head to toe in Tactical garb.
Armor plated vest, check, complete with POLICE tactical patches.
Thigh rig, check. BOTH LEGS NO DOUBT!
Belt with fullsize pistol, and about 6 mags, check.
Handcuffs and ziptie cuffs, check.
Then, the thing that really made me stare in awe was the fact that he thought that the two pistols on his thighs and the one on his hip weren't enough...dude had a holster velcroed to his plate carrier with yet another freakin pistol.
Homie looked like he was coming home from Fallujah. It was ridiculous. Scared my kids, thinking there was some serious crap going down. No, bro just needed a Homewrecker...
Quote:I'm just pointing out the Police are just as guilty as the thugs rioting. Plenty of times it comes out both sides are being played, Sharpton doesn't give a damn about the FBI correct. But he's been paid by the FBI in the past to be an informant, what's to say he still isn't paid by the FBI to stir up civil unrest and give them a reason to militarize the police?
Despite those of us that fall into the conspiracy theorist crowd would like to believe, FBI isn't working as your local police department. In fact, there's almost no interaction between the two departments.
Quote:In this specific case or in general? I can link you endless stories of aggressive Police behavior, in this case it APEARS at this time that the cop was overly aggressive and killed the unarmed boy I haven't seen that disputed anywhere.
This is a result of the war on drugs, war on terror, type redirect. When you arm policeman like a military, give them military grade weapons and armored vehicles. trump it up in every movie every show you end up with over aggressive cops.
Police deserve violent aggression because another cop at another point in time did something stupid? There are endless stories of aggressive civilian behavior, what's your point? Please explain the correlation between the war on drugs / war on terror and a police officer in Missouri confronting a very large man that knew he just committed strong-arm robbery?
Police have too much gear? Your argument is invalid if you're in favor of a well-regulated militias or populaces. If you're willing to name one piece of equipment that they shouldn't use, I can name a reason why it is completely necessary.
Quote:Please don't mistake what I'm trying to say as against of the average officer. I sympathize with them, they've been put in a bad spot. However you have to admit there is an over aggressive tone all together regarding the police force, it has become militarized. The police in Missouri have even called the area as a "war zone" I'll find the link to the article when I get home.
The redirect WAR on Drugs has been used forever, combine that with equipping our police like a military and the mindset changes. It changes from protect and serve to survive the war zone, in a war zone shoot first incidents are going to happen.
That's my issue this APPEARS to be a case of a hot headed cop that was in the shot first survive the war zone mentality. The family came out and asked for peaceful protest, and at first there seemed to be peaceful protest. Then agitators like Al Sharpton move in and suddenly they're rioting and looting. Several articles have reported most of the looters are not from the area, so they're coming just to agitate a bad situation. Now the discussion isn't the militarized police treating American soil like a "war zone" but rather controlling an unruly mob and the NEED for a militarized police force to control the public.
You're out-of-touch here. Police don't wake up thinking they're going to suit up and shoot someone. More and more police die every year because of inaction due to frivolous lawsuits that stick in the back of their minds. When the civilian populace changes, so do those responsible for enforcing the laws that govern them.
I don't know what it's like to work at Ferguson. I do know, from experience, that sometimes it is a war zone. Sometimes you're at war with someone or a group of people determined to seriously injure or kill you.
As for Michael Brown's death, very few outside of Ferguson knows all of the facts that surround his death.
We do know is that he just committed strong-armed robbery. 9 times out of 10, those people don't just give themselves up. They know what they did 100% of the time.
We're told that the officer suffered a blow-out orbital fracture. Is there a reason we shouldn't believe that? We're told that, and witness testimony confirms, that Brown fought the officer inside his patrol vehicle and that it appeared as though he intended to take the officer's gun. What purpose would that be other than to kill the officer? Now, what do you think the officer was thinking in that situation? What would YOU do in that situation?
He has every right to live. What would you have done in a fight-to-the-death? If the investigation turns out that the officer went too far, then hang the man from the highest tree. Until then, you (and others) are so hellbent on condemning him, that you're willing to use the same aggressive and hast behavior that you accused the officer of having.
Quote:There were some examples cited in one of the previous posts of complete overreaction by a law enforcement agency to conduct a relatively mundane task. I understand the need for LEOs to protect themselves, but I see examples watching the news and COPS where force is used when some simple diplomacy and tact would have sufficed. I have rolled through a sobriety checkpoint that had guys in full tactical gear standing to the side. I don't think that's necessary. Rather than projecting an image of competence, it conveys a definite police-state feel.
Tactical gear isn't needed for a DUI checkpoint and this could have been a gaffe, but do you know what had just transpired 10 minutes earlier at that checkpoint? Someone could have just called in a threat to blow up the checkpoint for all you know. People see these police in intimidating gear, but they have zero idea on back stories and just make assumptions.
When you start neutering police, you embolden criminals. When the Border Patrol had a public memo from the Chief come down clarifying their policy on use-of-force like 6 months ago, the aliens thought it meant they could assault agents and that the agent would be required to retreat. Stations that would see 4 or 5 assaults on agents per year were seeing that in the first week. The appearance of police weakness is a strong motivating factor in crime.
Quote:He's over the top on plenty of stuff but also makes valid points and one of them is the threat of a police state.
Ahh, so that is where you are getting your information.
If a crazy event happens, and police show up with tanks to save the day (and save their own lives), I dont see an issue.
The cause for concern is the increase in military-style "No Knock" raids in the place of normal police work. When the boys have the toys then they tend to want to play with them, and that leads to all kinds of trouble. I agree that police should have access to the needed weapons and tools to disperse violent riots, I think we're seeing that they've crossed the line into everyday use where they have no place.
Here's a great white paper on the topic from almost 10 years ago, and it's only gotten worse since.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-p...ds-america
Here's the most recent take from The Economist on the topic:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21...actics-too
The police and the community must have a trust relationship, the more they use their heavy handed toys and tactics in routine duties (or lunch breaks even) they more they damage that trust.
Quote:Ahh, so that is where you are getting your information.
If a crazy event happens, and police show up with tanks to save the day (and save their own lives), I dont see an issue.
This is actually pretty simple: when cops screw up with deadly force then innocent people die. Period. The cops should always err on the side of caution for that reason. Otherwise the end result is this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475
Quote:I was in the Moe's on SR 13 (San Jose) in Julington Creek @ Racetrack Rd with my two boys.
Daddy has guns. plenty of guns. Carries one just about everywhere he goes....
Cop walks in, head to toe in Tactical garb.
Armor plated vest, check, complete with POLICE tactical patches.
Thigh rig, check. BOTH LEGS NO DOUBT!
Belt with fullsize pistol, and about 6 mags, check.
Handcuffs and ziptie cuffs, check.
Then, the thing that really made me stare in awe was the fact that he thought that the two pistols on his thighs and the one on his hip weren't enough...dude had a holster velcroed to his plate carrier with yet another freakin pistol.
Homie looked like he was coming home from Fallujah. It was ridiculous. Scared my kids, thinking there was some serious crap going down. No, bro just needed a Homewrecker...
As long as that guy doesn't break and laws, that doesn't bother me. If I were a cop and putting my life in danger, I would rather be prepared every single day for what may happen while I'm on patrol.
Quote:This is actually pretty simple: when cops screw up with deadly force then innocent people die. Period. The cops should always err on the side of caution for that reason. Otherwise the end result is this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475
Where does it say that they had military grade weapons that everyone is talking about here? This really has nothing to do with the way this conversation has been going. That has to do with shotty investigative work and a major error by police.
I've never said police don't screw up or that they are all good guys. I simply think they should be able to protect themselves to where they see fit within the law.
Quote:This is actually pretty simple: when cops screw up with deadly force then innocent people die. Period. The cops should always err on the side of caution for that reason. Otherwise the end result is this:
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475'>http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475</a>
It's easy to quarterback in hindsight. How does one err on the side of caution when there are so many encounters that an officer has less than a second to decide whether to pull the trigger or have their families take an American flag home instead of a father?
Nobody disputes that the police need to be well regulated and kept in check by the law, but taking away their weapons is dangerous and counterproductive.
People get all flustered when cops make mistakes, but remember, the law doesn't say a cop must be right, but only reasonable in his application of force. Hence why cops rarely get charged for shooting someone that suddenly flashes a cell phone.
Quote:It's easy to quarterback in hindsight. How does one err on the side of caution when there are so many encounters that an officer has less than a second to decide whether to pull the trigger or have their families take an American flag home instead of a father?
Nobody disputes that the police need to be well regulated and kept in check by the law, but taking away their weapons is dangerous and counterproductive.
People get all flustered when cops make mistakes, but remember, the law doesn't say a cop must be right, but only reasonable in his application of force. Hence why cops rarely get charged for shooting someone that suddenly flashes a cell phone.
In the example he linked to, that situation was completely avoidable had the police simply done everything necessary to assure they were hitting the right location. Cops do make mistakes, but not so much when they do their due diligence in making sure they've got all their ducks in a row.
I agree with you that police normally have only a second or two in certain situations to evaluate and react. They are trained to do so, and to err on the side of caution and public safety in those instances. Do they make mistakes? Sure. They're still human. But, you're right. You don't take away their weapons because the citizenry thinks they're being "militarized" for some nefarious intent. If you look at the hardware they're facing on the street, they're struggling just to keep up in most cases.
Quote:In the example he linked to, that situation was completely avoidable had the police simply done everything necessary to assure they were hitting the right location. Cops do make mistakes, but not so much when they do their due diligence in making sure they've got all their ducks in a row.
I agree with you that police normally have only a second or two in certain situations to evaluate and react. They are trained to do so, and to err on the side of caution and public safety in those instances. Do they make mistakes? Sure. They're still human. But, you're right. You don't take away their weapons because the citizenry thinks they're being "militarized" for some nefarious intent. If you look at the hardware they're facing on the street, they're struggling just to keep up in most cases.
Yeah, I haven't even clicked the link yet. I was only referring to erring on caution's side. I fear with as litigious as we are getting we are more frequently going to read stories of officers who were killed because they hesitated. Common sense is the dictator, as in all things.
Quote:Ahh, so that is where you are getting your information.
If a crazy event happens, and police show up with tanks to save the day (and save their own lives), I dont see an issue.
I've linked at least half a dozen articles ranging from the fringe (info wars) to mainstream (Huffington post, Fox news, and the Guardian).
This reminds me of how Conservatives had no problems with the Patriot Act when Bush passed it, as soon as Obama gets in power they're all worried about Government Spying and over reach. Police can have tanks so long as they focus on the ghettos, one day they'll turn their attention else where and you'll see what I'm saying. Laugh now but just like the Patriot Act is abused to oppress political enemies of the establishment that militarized police force will one day be used to do the same.
Give government at any level power and they'll abuse it.
After reading that story, the police that shot the man did nothing wrong. He shot at them with a shotgun.
If anyone should be held responsible, it should be whoever was in charge of the investigation and the judge who signed off on it. Even so, the culpable party doesn't appear to have done anything criminal, unless there was some gross negligence that wasn't mentioned. The investigators and possibly the judge should lose their job, but the officers that performed the raid acted in self-preservation.