Militarization of the police in cartoon format


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

The issue I'd take with that comic is that the one farthest on the right doesn't represent the image that people have a problem with.  When you hear people talk about the militarization of the police, they're talking about military camouflage, not the blue pictured here that matches the other examples.  They're talking about military grade fully automatic rifles, not the sidearm or the nightstick pictured here.   They're talking about armored vehicles with gun cupolas, none of which is pictured here.  They're talking about guys who actually look like soldiers, which isn't what's pictured in the 2015 example above.  In this picture, the guy all the way on the right is wearing blue fatigues and simple riot gear.  If it were just that, you wouldn't hear so many complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

You guys know I tend to lean left...my husband is Conservative. So I asked him, "Okay, I support the right to bear arms, but why do regular citizens need automatic weapons? It's not like you need one to go hunting or kill a home invader." 

He said, "We need automatic weapons because the military and the police have them. The Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns and militias to guard against a government out of control."

That makes sense to me. This is one of those times when I think people need to listen to each other. Liberals who want to ban guns are often the same people who are concerned about the militarization of police.  And the Conservatives who support gun rights don't seem to see the picture clearly of why they need them since they don't appear to see the danger of militarized police.

Yes, I realize some may argue that police need them to fight gangs, and I don't disagree with that. I want our officers and our streets to be safe too. But we can't testify that our Founding Fathers were inspired and then ignore the very reason they wanted us to have guns. The Founding Fathers were not worried about gangs...

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Typos..stupid auto correct
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Not to say there isn't occasionally a legitimate LE need for a MRAP or heavy body armor, but when every department has the toys and needs to justify the maintenance costs, (or just wants to play with them more) they start dragging them out for situations where they aren't needed.

 

Absolutely agree with both you and Lit. I'm increasingly concerned about the war on police officers, that's for sure. But I don't think the over militarization of the police is the answer. 

Civilians don't want to be labeled as anti-police and police rightfully fear for their safety-so it's a controversial issue.  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of our local police sergeants recently retired from teaching (and using) urban tactics with the Army in the Middle East.  As he put it, when he was over there, odds were about 30:1 that a day's work would involve at least a potential lethal force incident, while over here, odds are about 30:1 that it won't.[1]  There, they carried gear made for days when roughly half the people you see are trying to kill you.  Here, carrying the same gear because one in ten thousand might is like pulling a trailer full of spare tires because you had a flat once.  Sure, there's a risk, but there are also lots of other lines of work you can go into if it bothers you that much.

[1] Of course, that does require losing the mentality where everything is a potential lethal force incident.[2]

[2] Which doesn't mean you have to leave yourself totally vulnerable to everyone you meet, contrary to plenty of LE training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

We also hear a lot about the lethal force incidents-and we should, for sure. 

But we don't hear about police using a dog instead of a 9mm. One police officer said it best "I can call back by dog, not a bullet." 

It's tough. Like everyone else here I have great respect for the dude who is a police officer here-he's seen stuff on the front line and should be respected. 

But to be totally fair, I don't think that everyone concerned about police brutality is a "hippy" or "Anti-police" either. 
 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

But we don't hear about police using a dog instead of a 9mm. One police officer said it best "I can call back by dog, not a bullet." 

I guess it depends on where you're going to hear stuff.  I hear about K9 use all the time.  Maybe 2-3 times a month. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I guess it depends on where you're going to hear stuff.  I hear about K9 use all the time.  Maybe 2-3 times a month. 

 Very true. I don't hear about it often. I'm sure it occurs more often than I hear about it of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Actually, I want to see how long I can keep my side of the conversation going with simple facebook memes.  

Troll-MilitarizationOfPolice.jpg

I'll address this graphic too since... well I just like to.

Nobody has a problem with riot helmets.  By all means, wear 'em.  No complaints here.

The fully automatic rifle... well yeah.  While AK-47s can be found among gangs especially, I'd be interested to know what the statistical likelihood is of needing the M-16 because you're going up against something like that.  "Just in case" isn't good enough.  Remember the L.A. Shootout when the LAPD was badly outgunned by the bank robbers who AK-47s and body armor?  Know what they did?  They went into a local gun store.  The owner of the store was happy to lend them plenty of rifles and ammo so they could go do what they had to do.  I like this as an example of law enforcement and regular citizens co-operating.  Part of my wish to see police departments stay away from military equipment is for this reason.  The more military you get, the more separated you are from the people in the community you're working with.  This can't be a good thing.

I have no problem with body armor for officers.  I don't know of anyone who does.

As for the armored vehicle...  How often to police cruisers get fired upon by that kind of ammo?  I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one just because I don't think that it happens too often.  If I'm wrong about that someone please show me the stats.

See, police used to always drive in cars, just like other citizens, and wore a shirt and tie, just like professionals.  It makes us as citizens feel more like the police are like us, it makes it easier to trust and approach them.  When they look like soldiers, there's a wide gulf between them and the community, and that's not a good thing.

 

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I guess it depends on where you're going to hear stuff.  I hear about K9 use all the time.  Maybe 2-3 times a month. 

Flag on the play... you didn't use a meme.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

The fully automatic rifle... well yeah.  While AK-47s can be found among gangs especially, I'd be interested to know what the statistical likelihood is of needing the M-16 because you're going up against something like that.  "Just in case" isn't good enough.

Full auto is great in war, where 99% of what's downrange is a valid target and the remaining 1% is acceptable collateral damage.  In law enforcement, using the phrase "acceptable collateral damage" should be grounds for summary execution.

Quote

Remember the L.A. Shootout when the LAPD was badly outgunned by the bank robbers who AK-47s and body armor? 

Know what works a heck of a lot better against body armor than 5.56?  Your granddad's deer rifle.  .30-06 for proven power and bolt action so there's no temptation to "spray, pray, and pray some more that you don't hit some innocents in the process."  Doesn't look cool, though.

Best deputy we ever had around here carried a lever action in .450 Marlin in his trunk for feral hogs and wounded deer.  Not sure if it would penetrate heavy body armor or not, but they wouldn't be standing around after a hit from that critter.  I know people who have been hit by less powerful rounds while wearing top of the line armor and they were still left combat ineffective for a few seconds trying to catch a breath and maintain balance.  All the armor can do is spread out the impact; anything that hurts to fire is going to hurt more to catch a bullet from.

Quote

As for the armored vehicle...  How often to police cruisers get fired upon by that kind of ammo?

Not really relevant; http://www.theboxotruth.com/tag/buick-of-truth/  Pretty much nothing stops for car bodywork.  OTOH, armored body panels (available for pretty much every commonly used patrol vehicle) cost less than MRAPs and are much more subtle; they just don't get the tacticool look from armor hidden inside the bodywork, though what they would get is some extra protection in the much more likely scenario of a car wreck.

Quote

See, police used to always drive in cars, just like other citizens, and wore a shirt and tie, just like professionals.  It makes us as citizens feel more like the police are like us, it makes it easier to trust and approach them.

Peel's 7th Principle: (though the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th are also quite relevant, and the 9th is critical to a proper understanding of what a "peace officer" should be)

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

 

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[giving up on memes here :) ]

I've never understood the "they look like soldiers, so there's a problem, because soldiers aren't us" deal.  

Whenever my wife and kids see soldiers, they see "one of us".  We interact with them, we talk to them in the checkout line at Best Buy and Walmart.  Sometimes, they show up to our ward on Sunday in full uniform, eager to take the sacrament before heading out on deployment.  I've put my kids into MRAPs when available at a parade or something.  Cops and soldiers are all us.  If you think they are "them", then you have the problem, and maybe it's time to consider doing something like make friends with one.

OTOH, armored body panels (available for pretty much every commonly used patrol vehicle) cost less than MRAPs

Well, if you're looking at a price list for both, you are correct.  But, when your department has zero budget for either one, and the military offers you a deommisioned MRAP for free, then you take it.  My local cops outfitted an old van donated by the forest service.  Their AR-15's were obtained through federal channels.  Their full-auto MP5's were seized in a drug raid.  The individual cops paid for much of their tactical gear and clothing out of their own paycheck.  

Something to consider, as you look at the next "scary" picture of "different" soldier/cops who "aren't us":  Do you know for a fact that they paid for that stuff out of their budget, or did the chief just jump at the chance to get some milsurp for free, because although it looks military, it'll protect his team better than what they've currently got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

Something to consider, as you look at the next "scary" picture of "different" soldier/cops who "aren't us":  Do you know for a fact that they paid for that stuff out of their budget, or did the chief just jump at the chance to get some milsurp for free, because although it looks military, it'll protect his team better than what they've currently got?

Remember either way they got it, it's the taxpayers who pay for it. I'm not saying that's bad at all, I'm no anarchist-but it's still the taxpayers who pay the salaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, if you're looking at a price list for both, you are correct.  But, when your department has zero budget for either one, and the military offers you a deommisioned MRAP for free, then you take it.

Know what it costs to maintain an MRAP?  Armor panels are still cheaper.  There's a reason ISIS isn't still using a lot of the stuff they managed to seize.

Quote

Their AR-15's were obtained through federal channels.  Their full-auto MP5's were seized in a drug raid.

Again, full auto is a very bad thing in LE.  The odds that whatever is beyond your target is a horribly bad thing to shoot at are way too high when you're not in an actual war zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

[giving up on memes here :) ]

I've never understood the "they look like soldiers, so there's a problem, because soldiers aren't us" deal.  

Whenever my wife and kids see soldiers, they see "one of us".  We interact with them, we talk to them in the checkout line at Best Buy and Walmart.  Sometimes, they show up to our ward on Sunday in full uniform, eager to take the sacrament before heading out on deployment.  I've put my kids into MRAPs when available at a parade or something.  Cops and soldiers are all us.  If you think they are "them", then you have the problem, and maybe it's time to consider doing something like make friends with one.

 

 

Well, if you're looking at a price list for both, you are correct.  But, when your department has zero budget for either one, and the military offers you a deommisioned MRAP for free, then you take it.  My local cops outfitted an old van donated by the forest service.  Their AR-15's were obtained through federal channels.  Their full-auto MP5's were seized in a drug raid.  The individual cops paid for much of their tactical gear and clothing out of their own paycheck.  

Something to consider, as you look at the next "scary" picture of "different" soldier/cops who "aren't us":  Do you know for a fact that they paid for that stuff out of their budget, or did the chief just jump at the chance to get some milsurp for free, because although it looks military, it'll protect his team better than what they've currently got?

 

 

My views have softened over the years on this, and I have always support the police and keeping them safe. However, I still don't like the idea that we have military power in the police force. I am not terrified of it, but it certainly concerns me. We have the military, for that. 

Although they "are us", you can point to many nations throughout history that their own people, EG government, law enforcers, judges...etc.. were used for evil. No I do not think that the majority of our police force would go against their own people, at least not overnight. But it can happen and no one can deny that. Currently (and has been in the past) Venezuela is an example of their own people (Police)  going against them (the citizen).  Do we deny that the government isn't "us"? As is the police force. 

Edited by EarlJibbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vacillate a lot on this; but my current thinking is--I don't mind them having the gear in the abstract (I thought I'd read somewhere that if the Aurora shooter hadn't surrendered, the cops wouldn't have been able to bring him down with the firearms they had on-site); it's the overuse of the gear and particular tactics (no-knock midnight raids on warrants that could be just as effectively served in daylight, etc) that bothers me more.

That said--and this is going to sound terrible; and it is terrible, so let me preface this:  I love cops.  I have a cousin who's a cop.  I spend much of my days in court shooting the breeze with the bailiffs and security staff.  I'd hate to see any of them get hurt.  But, here's where the terrible thing comes in:  The fact that a particular tactic or piece of gear can save a police officer's life is not necessarily sufficient justification for the deployment of that tactic/piece of equipment against the citizenry on a routine basis. 

If you're trying to justify a SWAT team's raiding some hippie college student's grow operation at 3 AM with battering ram and guns a'blazin' because "he might shoot back, and an officer could get hurt"--with all due respect, Officer, you're working in Anytown USA, not in downtown Fallujah.  As citizens who are not in a state of rebellion, we do have rights; and you did assume a certain amount of risk when you pinned the badge on this morning.  That's what makes you heroes.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Again, full auto is a very bad thing in LE.  The odds that whatever is beyond your target is a horribly bad thing to shoot at are way too high when you're not in an actual war zone.

 

So tell me which one of these is the fully automatic.  

 

 

accm_zpslkwx6txa.png

 

ar15_zps4r1patez.jpg

 

6920_zpsxzbk30rn.png

 

SWAT has the automatics, the rest of us don't. 

 

 

Quote

In law enforcement, using the phrase "acceptable collateral damage" should be grounds for summary execution.

We don't use that term and never have.  Your made up facts are not useful.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish they would put ballistic panels and windows in my patrol car.

 

Quote

How often to police cruisers get fired upon by that kind of ammo?  I'm gonna call shenanigans on this one just because I don't think that it happens too often. 

I've been shot at several times.  Only once was while not in my car.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Again, full auto is a very bad thing in LE.  The odds that whatever is beyond your target is a horribly bad thing to shoot at are way too high when you're not in an actual war zone.

I don't get it.  Are you saying that if you've got a semi-auto, or bolt action, or revolver, then suddenly everything beyond your target is a peachy keen thing to shoot at?  I'm missing what you're saying about full auto, that doesn't apply to every other firearm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

I've been shot at several times.  Only once was while not in my car.

 In fairness to Mirkwood (and all police officers) we don't have to make snap decisions with life or death consequences on a daily basis. That counts for something. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Remember either way they got it, it's the taxpayers who pay for it. I'm not saying that's bad at all, I'm no anarchist-but it's still the taxpayers who pay the salaries. 

Officers pay taxes too.

Tools at work on my belt: Glock 17 three magazines, Motorola radio, OC canister, 2 sets of handcuffs, taser and flashlight.  Plus the belt and pouches/holsters and keepers to carry them.  I paid for all the belts/pouches etc., the Glock, the magazines and the handcuffs.  The office bought my OC canister, taser, radio and bullets.  I carry a rifle too.  The office paid for the bullets.  I paid for the rifle, magazines, optic, etc.  I paid for my own body armor.  All five sets that I own.  I have a variety of other tools in my vehicle.  Most I bought on my own to better do my job.  A few the office bought.  I get a uniform allowance that helps, but I have to maintain and clean them myself.  It isn't cheap to buy a uniform shirt and pants.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

So tell me which one of these is the fully automatic.  

Tell me which of these is less effective at stopping a threat at common urban engagement ranges:

photo_1895M.jpg

ZAX102A-Z-F2-L.jpg

M1_Garand.jpg

Of course, it's irrelevant since they don't look cool enough.

Quote

We don't use that term and never have.  Your made up facts are not useful.

Really?  You've reviewed every word spoken by all LE and can guarantee that phrase has never been used?

Quote

I wish they would put ballistic panels and windows in my patrol car.

Well, if they weren't wasting money on the cool toys, they could.  Would make a lot more sense than one MRAP rusting in a garage somewhere.

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't get it.  Are you saying that if you've got a semi-auto, or bolt action, or revolver, then suddenly everything beyond your target is a peachy keen thing to shoot at?  I'm missing what you're saying about full auto, that doesn't apply to every other firearm...

I'm saying that all other fire modes require the user to initiate each shot separately.  While it's not a guarantee that a shooter will think about where each round is going to go, it does make it a lot easier to avoid hitting things you shouldn't.  One of the first things I found out about FA fire is that when the situation changes, you have to actively stop shooting, whereas even during rapid fire with a semiauto all you have to do is not shoot anymore.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool has nothing to do with it.  If it did, none of us would carry Glock.  You still failed to point out which fully automatic gun you say we all carry.  Scary looking guns don’t equate to an improper tool.  The simple fact that you can’t tell the difference between a fully automatic and a semi automatic rifle does not equate to the rifle choice being poor.

You made a blanket statement that the police use the term “acceptable collateral damage. “  Now you have made a nice attempt at a back pedal.  Your made up fact is still less then useful.

MRAP’s serve a purpose.  Feel free to do a search with MRAP, or armored car or bearcat and add my name to your search filter.  I’ve explained it on this forum before and don’t feel like typing it again.

 Your shotgun is a poor choice...unless you want "acceptable collateral damage" from all that buckshot flying downrange.

The Garand is heavy and unwieldy and fires the 30.06 round.  Imagine the issue of that round and penetration.  Terrible urban caliber, unless you don't worry about "acceptable collateral damage."

Not sure what your lever action is, I would guess the 450 marlin since you mentioned it, which I am unfamiliar with.  Having fired a couple of lever action rifles, they are not a smooth in operation as the AR platforms.  I would take an AR any day over a lever action.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share