Militarization of the Police

[Blackmarch]

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.

What we see is what the media wants us to see.

[unixknight]

So you're assuring me that such militarization isn't happening, and I appreciate it because, Heaven knows I don't need things to stress about.  That said, I'm afraid I can't agree.

 

Yes, there is military training given to cops, my friend..

 

"By the fall of 2011, there were dozens of municipalities, counties, and townships in the United States that had hired a private military and security company to train their police forces—often Blackwater."

 

And it isn't just about the stuff that went down in Ferguson.  Regarding some incidents related to the whole Occupy Wall Street thing:

 

"in early Octo­ber things began to change. In their black full-battle uniforms armed with assault rifles, sometimes even M4s like the ones the military used in Iraq and Afghanistan, some police began to act the way they looked. In Oakland, for example, police kicked and attacked demon­strators, including war veterans, shooting them in the face with tear­gas canisters. An ex-Marine who had spent two tours of duty in Iraq was hit so hard in the head with a police projectile—while he was texting—that he was taken to a hospital in critical condition and for nearly two months lost his ability to speak. As if in a flashback scene from the disaster at Nisour Square, Oakland police threw a “flash­bang grenade” at the people who ran to help the wounded vet."

 

As a result, the U.N. took notice.

 

"It was a potentially shameful situation for the United States, especially when the U.N., the watchdog of human rights violations across the globe, turned its gaze on the nation that considered itself the world’s icon of freedom and human rights."

 

But I'd also like to point out something else on a somewhat separate note.  Equipping cops with military gear is intimidating.  We can't just blow that off by saying that only bad guys have a reason to be concerned... I don't know about you but I'd be pretty unnerved by seeing a cop walk by in full body armor, a fully automatic weapon and one of these armored vehicles trailing along behind.  And yes, I'm a law abiding citizen with no felonies.  

 

So I ask you:  Is that a good thing?  Should the citizenry be intimidated by law enforcement?  Ever?  I'm not talking about a riot in progress.  I'm talking about a guy like me sitting in my living room watching military equipment in use on TV in a civilian context and wondering just what the heck happened?

 

I think we'll wind up agreeing to disagree, and that's cool, because I don't want to find myself contending with the brethren :)  All I ask is that you guys keep your eyes open, and always ask yourself if what we're seeing is truly so benign.

[unixknight]

What we see is what the media wants us to see.

 

Well I can't disagree with that 

 

This is why alternate sources are so important.

[NeuroTypical]

Yeah, diverse sources for news is important.  I notice you're using salon.com!  I was guessing you were availing yourself of a certain bias in your sources.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking them as a source, but it explains a little about your attitude, and how hard you seem to be arguing against some of the opinions you're getting here.  But fair enough.

 

"By the fall of 2011, there were dozens of municipalities, counties, and townships in the United States that had hired a private military and security company to train their police forces—often Blackwater."

 

I notice it doesn't say anything about the type of training.   Let's look at the specifics you cut and paste:

 

 

"In Oakland, for example, police kicked and attacked demon­strators, including war veterans, shooting them in the face with tear­gas canisters."

 

Again, military martial arts kick to kill and injure - yet nobody died.  Military training would involve shooting for critical mass in order to kill.  You've provided an example of nonlethal response - kicking to subdue, and tear gas is designed to be nonlethal.  In other words, they're acting like police, not soldiers.

 

 

 

"An ex-Marine who had spent two tours of duty in Iraq was hit so hard in the head with a police projectile—while he was texting—that he was taken to a hospital in critical condition and for nearly two months lost his ability to speak."

 

I wonder what a "police projectile" is.  Any ideas?  Was it a sandbag or rubber bullet maybe?  Again, you've provided an example of nonlethal response - sandbags and rubber bullets are both designed to be nonlethal.  In other words, they're acting like police, not soldiers.

 

 

"As if in a flashback scene from the disaster at Nisour Square, Oakland police threw a “flash­bang grenade” at the people who ran to help the wounded vet.""

 

Did you read my previous account of being in the middle of a SWAT demonstration?  They chucked a flashbang at me.  Totally nonlethal.  Earlier in that day, one cop had demonstrated exactly how nonlethal.  He was sitting on a normal lawn chair - the kind with the aluminum frame and fabric straps, right?  He placed a flashbang on the floor well, forgive the detailed description, but directly under his scrotum, and lit it.  It went off, literally less than two inches away from that special area.  Flashbangs are designed to make light and sound - not shockwave.  It's not a grenade.  And putting it in scare quotes like the article did, doesn't make it any more dangerous.

 

Again, you've provided an example of nonlethal response - flashbangs are designed to be nonlethal.  In other words, they're acting like police, not soldiers.  

 

This is supposed to be your big evidence of them receiving military training?  I am unimpressed.

 

 

"But I'd also like to point out something else on a somewhat separate note.  Equipping cops with military gear is intimidating.  We can't just blow that off by saying that only bad guys have a reason to be concerned... I don't know about you but I'd be pretty unnerved by seeing a cop walk by in full body armor, a fully automatic weapon and one of these armored vehicles trailing along behind.  And yes, I'm a law abiding citizen with no felonies."

 

Yep - I can understand folks getting intimidated and unnerved.  I was too.  I took that citizen's academy training, wondering if I'd come away feeling intimidated or not.  I was worried they'd now have my personal info, and I was worried they'd target me for extra attention I didn't want.  My anxiety went up a bit when I walked in the door to see that one of the presenters was a cop who had given me a speeding ticket.  I figured I was hosed. 

 

But it totally wasn't like that.  They asked the class if anyone had had an encounter with the police.  I raised my hand and said "I got a speeding ticket - I think it was from that guy there."  He actually blushed a little and said "Oh crap - I hope I was professional about it!"  By the end of the day we were laughing.   

 

By the way - here's the video of me volunteering for the taser demonstration.  Good times.

 

I got to know some of the members of my local police force.  I'd really suggest you do the same.  Someone in your local or county or state police might be throwing some sort of public outreach deal.  Ride alongs, citizens academy, 'meet a cop' night - stuff like that.  I'd suggest you go learn a little about them.  If they're jack-booted thugs out to steal your civil rights and intimidate you into obeying, you'd think it would come across.  

 

Come on unixknight - I dare you.  In fact, I double-dare you *.  Go get to know some of your local cops.  Then come back and tell us if you were right all along or not.  

  

For me and my family, whenever we see a a cop walk by in full body armor, a fully automatic weapon and one of these armored vehicles trailing along behind, we go up and ask if my 11 yr old daughter can sit in the front seat and work the siren.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* I won't triple-dog-dare you though, because I don't want to contend with the brethren either. :)

Edited March 24, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[mirkwood]

 

 

 

By the way - here's the video of me volunteering for the taser demonstration.  Good times.

 

 

 

 

 

*snort* 

 

*chuckle*

 

neuro gets why that amused me.

 

I'll poke around and see if I can find the picture of me being tased and post it if I find it.

[Blackmarch]

Well I can't disagree with that 

 

This is why alternate sources are so important.

sorry had to be short with my prev answer as i had to leave the comp.

most police training comes from previous cops field experience (IE this cop got severely injured or killed because he didn't do this or this).  In most cases that i've been able to look at its the civilians that get aggressive first, as well as create a very volatile environment.

Methods for controlling and containing certain situations tend to be the similar across the board. Things that are effective tend to stay, where as things that are not tend to get dumped. It shouldn't be surprising at all that there are aspects of military training and police training that are becoming almost identical.

thirdly our culture thrives, or more accurately revels, on violence, sex, popularity, "us vs them", and power.... and i'm talking about the law abiding populace. From this populace we get both our cops and our criminials. - if we really want to see a significant "de-militarization" happen, it's going to take a significant change in the people, the average folks, us. one that i don't see happening any time soon.

When people are armed, they tend to have as much or more fire power than what the cop is usually carrying. (but that gap is shrinking).

 

Edited March 24, 2015 by Blackmarch

[David13]

unixknight

Two things I take issue with.

"They are innocent until proven guilty".  Not quite.  If they were innocent why would the police be after them?  They have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that the suspect was the one what committed the crime.  The idea or concept that they are to be considered innocent until proven guilty is a presumption.  They are 'presumed' to be innocent until proven guilty as a procedure in a court of law.  And you do know what a presumption is, don't you?  Yes, a fiction.

Before we go to court, we have evidence that we believe a trier of fact will use to conclude that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to your 'statistic' that we are 55 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, I ask you?

When you say "we" that all important word, do you mean an armed robber, an ex con, a prison escapee, a "thug", a gangster, a dope dealer, or do you mean "we" like you probably have on this forum, law abiding, background passed, conscientious, tax paying, wage or salary earning citizen? 

I'll say that would make a 100 to 1 difference in your 'statistic'.

dc

 

I do think you are right;  we should all get far more involved with our local law enforcement.  But that also means being in favor of law enforcement. 

Edited March 25, 2015 by David13