Militarization of the Police

[unixknight]

Here's an article I got a link to in my work E-mail.

 

 

What do you think?  Is this a real problem, or is it much ado about nothing?

Edited March 23, 2015 by unixknight

[pam]

Well the problem I see is that when I click on that link it comes right back to this thread.  

[unixknight]

Apologies.  I edited the link and tested it, should be good to go now :)

[Guest MormonGator]

Yes, militarization of the police is a legit, real problem. Our local police received a "Bearcat" tank recently, and I, along with others protested our police department doing so. I live in a town of about 42,000. It is also the state capital and the state police already have a Bearcat. Our local police has no need of one. 

 

I am not anti-police officer in the least. In fact, I think they are over bashed in our society. That said, leave the military vehicles to the military. 

Edited March 23, 2015 by MormonGator

[NeuroTypical]

My local small town cops let me go shooting with them once.  I got to fire their AR-15's, and most of all their full-auto MP-5 submachine guns.  They got them off the street in a major drug bust.  

 

I figure the cops should have access to firepower and equipment one notch above what they're likely to face on the streets from bad guys.  

 

Cases of excessive force or brutality or what have you, should be taken seriously and prosecuted fully - regardless of whether it's done with a tank or a wooden baton.

[unixknight]

I understand what you mean by having better firepower than what they'd be likely to face... But how would one know that?  We can only guess... Maybe go by past experience, but then my question becomes:  Have we had a problem with villains using landmines such that police departments want mine resistant armored vehicles?

 

And to follow the question to its logical conclusion: Is that sort of escalation what we want in our communities?  If the criminals get a grenade launcher the police should equip themselves with LAW rockets?  (Pardon the pun ) I don't know... It seems that the police already have significant advantages in manpower, vehicles (including aircraft) and training.  It seems like an arms race isn't the answer... but maybe I'm just being naive?

Edited March 23, 2015 by unixknight

[Crypto]

 It seems like an arms race isn't the answer... but maybe I'm just being naive?

 

Will it cause an arms race? What evidence is there for this?

 

(Not that I agree with militarizing the police)

[unixknight]

Not sure what sort of evidence you're thinking of...  I was just responding to the idea of the police being able to outgun anything they may face.  

[NeuroTypical]

"I understand what you mean by having better firepower than what they'd be likely to face... But how would one know that?  We can only guess..."

 

We know, based on what our police are encountering, and what gets seized off the streets, and what gets stopped at the border.  No guessing required.  Right?

 

"...but then my question becomes:  Have we had a problem with villains using landmines such that police departments want mine resistant armored vehicles?"

 

From what I understand, cops having access to APV's find them useful for getting into position where there may be an active shooter, or an IED or bomb.  And yes, we have lots and lots and lots of problems with all those.   

 

"And to follow the question to its logical conclusion: Is that sort of escalation what we want in our communities?  If the criminals get a grenade launcher the police should equip themselves with LAW rockets?"

 

LAW rockets are used against hardened vehicles, not bad guys with grenade launchers.  APV's, drones, and protective equipment would be really useful against a bad guy with a grenade launcher, as well as bad guys with other stuff.

 

"It seems that the police already have significant advantages in manpower, vehicles (including aircraft) and training."

 

It depends on the area.  Detroit is a horror show.  Towns and counties bordering with Mexico have encountered the cartel's equivalent of an armed invasion force.  Spillville Iowa probably has everything under control.  

 

"It seems like an arms race isn't the answer... but maybe I'm just being naive?"

 

I don't think 'arms race' is a useful way to think about the issue.  Gangs and bad guys aren't sovereign nations with the authority to tax and devote recources to their militaries.  You deal with crime by being tougher than it and making it not worth their while.

Edited March 23, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[pkstpaul]

I see the issue more about why we are now in a position to outpower criminals. Not from a gun-control standpoint but from a moral standpoint. I think, as a nation, we became too passive about crime and thus empowered criminals to become stronger. For decades we have been hearing how we have become a nation of intitutionalized criminals (i.e. too many prisons) and pressure has been put on releasing criminals and opting for community restoritive justice programs, etc. The issue is far too complex for a forum post, but I'll say it this way - If we were harder on crime, we would have fewer criminals. We've gone in the opposite direction.

 

In my town, police hand out citations for almost any crime that isn't violent. Then every night we see police blotter notes on criminals arrested for a crime AND found with an outstanding warrant. Why the warrent? Because they didn't show up to pay for their citation for the previous crime(s). It is an endless cycle in too large a part of my community.

 

When I grew up, if a youth was caught shoplifting or fighting, they were taken to a police station and processed. They had to be "bailed out" by a parent. Today, there is no such penalty for petty crime. It is too "costly" for police to deal with. My argument is they are paying the cost now.

 

In my opinion, militarization is a justified response for what is expected to be a requirement dealing with multiple generations raised without consequences for their actions.

 

Mental health and drug abuse (same issue) are the other reasons for escalating crime, but like I said, too complex for a forum post.

[unixknight]

@NeuroTypical: We can only guess.  Yes, we know what's been seized or what comes across the border, but what kind of hardware ends up in the hands of criminals in L.A. isn't the same as what we'd expect to find in small towns.  Does the police department in West Undershirt, Montana need heavy firepower because gangs in L.A. have been known to carry fully automatic weapons?  If you want to make a case that heavier equipment is needed in the really rough neighborhoods that's perfectly fine, but we can't excuse all police militarization based on the most extreme cases.

 

I'm not aware of us having lots and lots of problems with IEDs in the United States... and as for bombs, we have robots and trained experts for dealing with those.  Can you provide any examples of police departments using these vehicles to run over landmines?  Did the police department in Ferguson, MO fear such devices when they were running theirs up and down the street with other officers walking alongside and the cupola wide open?

 

How often do police departments get into firefights with suspects using such heavy weapons as grenade launchers?  If it's frequent, one can make an argument for having APVs.  Otherwise, not so much.

 

You're right about Detroit, but I hope we can agree that the solution there isn't to militarize the police department and make a bad situation worse.  (Not that the city could afford that kind of hardware anyway...)  And as for the border, that's really beyond local police and ought to be handled by the military.  (Yeah, I know... what ought to be and what is aren't usually the same...)  Again, is that the right solution to the problem?

 

I dunno "You deal with crime by being tougher than it and making it not worth their while." kinda sounds like an arms race to me.

 

Besides, according to the article, the vast majority of S.W.A.T. actions involve serving warrants... Not what they were originally intended for... and usually those are for drug charges.  Doesn't seem like this hardware is really necessary, just used for the shock & awe effect.

Edited March 23, 2015 by unixknight

[unixknight]

In my opinion, militarization is a justified response for what is expected to be a requirement dealing with multiple generations raised without consequences for their actions.

 

And yet things are getting worse despite the militarization.  What's the next step?

[NeuroTypical]

"Does the police department in West Undershirt, Montana need heavy firepower because gangs in L.A. have been known to carry fully automatic weapons?  If you want to make a case that heavier equipment is needed in the really rough neighborhoods that's perfectly fine, but we can't excuse all police militarization based on the most extreme cases."

 

Agreed.  As I said above, "Spillville Iowa probably has everything under control."  I would add though, some cases exist where smaller town or backwater county has known it's been a thoroughfare for major illegal operations, but has always lacked the manpower and equipment to do anything about it.  Add a bulletproof vehicle or two, and they might finally be able to do something about it.

 

 

 

"Did the police department in Ferguson, MO fear such devices when they were running theirs up and down the street with other officers walking alongside and the cupola wide open?"

 

Fear isn't the right word.  Did they anticipate the possibility of explosives?  Or molotov cocktails?  Or getting shot at?  Absolutely.  That's sort of in a police officer's job description, including those in Ferguson.

 

 

 

"How often do police departments get into firefights with suspects using such heavy weapons as grenade launchers?  If it's frequent, one can make an argument for having APVs.  Otherwise, not so much."

 

You do understand that an APV is useful for protecting police in any number of situations, from active shooting to mob violence to hostage rescue to bomb response, right?   

 

 

 

"You're right about Detroit, but I hope we can agree that the solution there isn't to militarize the police department and make a bad situation worse.  (Not that the city could afford that kind of hardware anyway...)"

 

I don't understand what you mean by the word "militarize".  Could you explain what you mean?  Is it something more than just adding some military surplus equipment?  Depending on what you mean by the word, it's possible I do believe such would help, and could make a bad situation better.  

 

 

 

"And as for the border, that's really beyond local police and ought to be handled by the military.  (Yeah, I know... what ought to be and what is aren't usually the same...)  Again, is that the right solution to the problem?"

 

Unixknight, the military isn't going to respond to crimes and violence happening in our neighborhoods and streets.  I'd strongly urge you to read this account: 

 

Mexican Cartels and the Fallout From Phoenix

 

 

 

"Besides, according to the article, the vast majority of S.W.A.T. actions involve serving warrants... Not what they were originally intended for... and usually those are for drug charges.  Doesn't seem like this hardware is really necessary, just used for the shock & awe effect."

 

Something got made pretty clear to me a handful of years ago, and I'd like to share it with you.  I was involved in a citizens police academy, and they did a SWAT demonstration on us.  We were sitting in a classroom and told the demonstration was going to start. They started pounding on the back door, yelling "Police Officer!  Search Warrant!  Open the Door!"  They opened the door just enough to toss a flashbang in, and we all jumped when it went off within feet of us.  As we turned back to face the front of the class, we saw the line of SWAT folks had already mostly poured in through a different side door on the other side of the room, while our backs were turned, and were now set up in a line in front of us, yelling at us to stick our hands up.  It was quite the impactful experience.

 

They then all took off their equipment, and we all walked through the events bit by bit.  The thing that struck home, was as they described how the officers entered the room.  They call it "the death chute", because the guys running into the room have the highest chances of dying.  A higher chance than just about anything else they do in their entire careers.  The first guy through has really high odds of serious injury or death.  If there's going to be an injury or death, it's probably the first cop into the death chute.  Yet they train to do it, because there are bad guys that make such things necessary.  Despite knowing the high risk of not being able to go home to their wives and children, they still are willing to run the chute.

 

After learning about that and letting it sink in a bit, I stopped begrudging them whatever military-grade protection they can get their hands on.  If it increases their chances of going home despite the bad guys doing everything they can to kill them, then I'm pretty much ok with it.  I don't care if it makes them look militaristic on TV. They're willing to do that for you and me, and they don't even know us.  

 

It made an impact on me.  Your mileage may vary.

Edited March 23, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[sxfritz]

My "small" city (< 100,000) has Mexican cartels pushing heroin by the pound. No doubt these bad guys are not carrying slingshots.

[David13]

The police have always been 'para-military'.  This is nothing new. 

Yes, the gangsters pack up the Escalade and drive up to any small town anywhere.  And they got a lot of money to buy (illegally, mind you, they don't go down and get a "background check") all the super weaponry they want.

There have been numerous cases where the police have been grossly under gunned in various situations.

Search for "Norco Bank Robbery" and watch a 3 part documentary about that event.  And there was a famous North Hollywood bank robbery with the same problem. 

Police wear unforms, they have a military style command hierarchy, they are involved in weaponry, they act on behalf of all the citizens, etc., all very much like the military.

dc

[Colirio]

I expect the police to do what they need to do to make it home safe each night.

Unreal expectations of limitations from a public who demands to "be protected" while taking little to no responsibility for their own safety and security leaves me scratching my head...

[Guest]

I expect the police to do what they need to do to make it home safe each night.

Unreal expectations of limitations from a public who demands to "be protected" while taking little to no responsibility for their own safety and security leaves me scratching my head...

It's not that they put limitations and take no responsibility. It is that they are not completely assured that the "protectors" will not become the enemy.

[David13]

Anatess

That's a major part of the reason a lot of us do not want to be disarmed.  It's why we want to take responsibility for our own protection.

dc

Edited March 24, 2015 by David13

[Just_A_Guy]

My experience:

 

People who expect--either for political reasons, or because of their own conduct--that police might at some point be coming after them, tend to want police forces to be tactically weak and dislike the idea of militarization.

 

People who expect--either for political reasons, or because of their own conduct--that police will only be coming after other people and not themselves, tend to want police forces to be tactically strong and like the idea of militarization.

[Guest]

My experience:

 

People who expect--either for political reasons, or because of their own conduct--that police might at some point be coming after them, tend to want police forces to be tactically weak and dislike the idea of militarization.

 

People who expect--either for political reasons, or because of their own conduct--that police will only be coming after other people and not themselves, tend to want police forces to be tactically strong and like the idea of militarization.

Or people who grew up under Martial Law or civilian insurgencies tend to get warning bells ringing when they read the words militarization of police... it kinda brings the feeling of, "something is about to happen...".

[Blackmarch]

 

Here's an article I got a link to in my work E-mail.

 

 

What do you think?  Is this a real problem, or is it much ado about nothing?

 

the problem is what the opposition can have access to. Unfortunately i think there's more for it than against it.

[unixknight]

I get what you guys are saying, and the biggest argument seems to be "This stuff is needed to protect the cops."

 

And it isn't that I want bad things to happen to cops. (I'd hate to think I've given that impression.)

 

It's just that one of the characteristics of a free society is that there's a very vast difference between civilian law enforcement and the military.  A point I made a few weeks ago in the "Cops are people too" thread bears repeating here:  If you equip and train a person like a soldier, he's going to act like a soldier.  Why is that a bad thing?

 

A soldier's job is to destroy the enemy.   In terms of law enforcement, there *is* no enemy, because a suspect is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  That's why I am averse to the preemptive mentality behind militarization.  And when I say "militarization" I mean police departments being equipped with military level equipment and training.  

 

We don't need our cops thinking like soldiers.  We don't need the "us" and "them" attitude that's already WAY too common these days, and that's coming from BOTH sides of the issue.  

 

Fun fact:  The average American is 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.  I REALLY think that problem needs to be addressed before we justify giving police departments even more aggressive equipment and training, don't you?

[Blackmarch]

I get what you guys are saying, and the biggest argument seems to be "This stuff is needed to protect the cops."

 

And it isn't that I want bad things to happen to cops. (I'd hate to think I've given that impression.)

 

It's just that one of the characteristics of a free society is that there's a very vast difference between civilian law enforcement and the military.  A point I made a few weeks ago in the "Cops are people too" thread bears repeating here:  If you equip and train a person like a soldier, he's going to act like a soldier.  Why is that a bad thing?

 

A soldier's job is to destroy the enemy.   In terms of law enforcement, there *is* no enemy, because a suspect is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  That's why I am averse to the preemptive mentality behind militarization.  And when I say "militarization" I mean police departments being equipped with military level equipment and training.  

 

We don't need our cops thinking like soldiers.  We don't need the "us" and "them" attitude that's already WAY too common these days, and that's coming from BOTH sides of the issue.  

 

Fun fact:  The average American is 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.  I REALLY think that problem needs to be addressed before we justify giving police departments even more aggressive equipment and training, don't you?

What's their definition of terrorism?

What happens when civvies equip and train more like soldiers?

 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Blackmarch

[unixknight]

What's their definition of terrorism?

What happens when civvies equip and train more like soldiers?

 

 

When that becomes a widespread problem I'd gladly revisit the question, but unless it's happening everywhere I don't see that the fear of it justifies what we're seeing.  Besides, that's what SWAT teams are supposed to be for, not your average beat cop.

[NeuroTypical]

"It's just that one of the characteristics of a free society is that there's a very vast difference between civilian law enforcement and the military.  A point I made a few weeks ago in the "Cops are people too" thread bears repeating here:  If you equip and train a person like a soldier, he's going to act like a soldier.  Why is that a bad thing?

 

A soldier's job is to destroy the enemy.   In terms of law enforcement, there *is* no enemy, because a suspect is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  That's why I am averse to the preemptive mentality behind militarization.  And when I say "militarization" I mean police departments being equipped with military level equipment and training."

 

Cool - thanks for your definition of militarization.  That helps me formulate a response.  I do not believe militarization (as defined here) is happening to any US police anywhere.  Reason being, while some military equipment is being received and put to use, there are no police anywhere in the US being trained like soldiers.

 

You are right, unixknight, a big part of the job for a soldier is to kill people and break their stuff.  And while a soldier is also trained to minimize civilian casualties, and to do other things like maintain order and deliver supplies and whatnot, they are trained to kill effectively.  I don't think that sort of training really happens in the US with any police force.  

 

Police focus on apprehending suspects, maintain order, and when they encounter bad guys, stopping the threat with by using an appropriate level of force.  That appropriate level of force pretty much never amounts to what soldiers learn.  The average beat cop isn't trained in suppressive fire or force degredation, for example.  Soldiers learn martial arts that help them kill and break bones.  Cops learn martial arts that help them subdue.

 

So yeah, by your definition, militarization ain't happening to our cops.  They're just getting better equipment against more dangerous foes. 

 

 

 

"Fun fact:  The average American is 55 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist.  I REALLY think that problem needs to be addressed before we justify giving police departments even more aggressive equipment and training, don't you?"

 

Kind of an odd way to present a fact like that.  I'm guessing the fact was produced by someone with an anti-cop agenda.  That fact is supposed to be "An American is 100 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist".  The reason it's less, is because terrorism has come to our shores, and now terrorists are killing people.  

Edited March 24, 2015 by NeuroTypical