Militarization of the police in cartoon format


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Because I was being unclear as a result of posting in a rush :cool:

When I mentioned "armored vehicles" I'm talking about APCs and the like.  A police car with armor is, in my mind, no different from wearing bullet proof vests, which I have no problem with.  It's not militarization.

Ok, fair enough.  But can you explain what the difference is, in your mind, between an armored police car, and an armored military vehicle?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Ok, fair enough.  But can you explain what the difference is, in your mind, between an armored police car, and an armored military vehicle?

More than happy to. 

First, image.  There's always been a lot of talk about co-operation between local law enforcement and the citizenry.  If you want to encourage that, you can't expect people to be as comfortable around a military vehicle as they are with an ordinary police car (which causes enough anxiety as it is, in our current climate.)  It's the same concept as the difference between the shirt and tie vs. fatigues.  One is approachable, the other is not.

Second, it's the same objection I raised in the past.  If you equip people like soldiers, they'll start acting like soldiers.  I hope I don't need to explain again why that's a bad thing but I certainly can.

Third, it reinforces the us v. them mentality for both the community and the police department.  I think we've had quite enough of that already.

Consider this also.  If crime in parts of our country is so severe that we need a militarized police force, complete with AFVs and heavy firepower, then something has gone very seriously wrong already.  Who's to blame?  Politicians' crummy policies?  Poor policing in the past?  A community that chooses to live in a self-imposed warzone?  All of the above to some degree?  Maybe instead of escalating things we ought to be looking for the root cause.

 

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
21 minutes ago, unixknight said:

More than happy to. 

First, image.  There's always been a lot of talk about co-operation between local law enforcement and the citizenry.  If you want to encourage that, you can't expect people to be as comfortable around a military vehicle as they are with an ordinary police car (which causes enough anxiety as it is, in our current climate.)  It's the same concept as the difference between the shirt and tie vs. fatigues.  One is approachable, the other is not.

Second, it's the same objection I raised in the past.  If you equip people like soldiers, they'll start acting like soldiers.  I hope I don't need to explain again why that's a bad thing but I certainly can.

Third, it reinforces the us v. them mentality for both the community and the police department.  I think we've had quite enough of that already.

Consider this also.  If crime in parts of our country is so severe that we need a militarized police force, complete with AFVs and heavy firepower, then something has gone very seriously wrong already.  Who's to blame?  Politicians' crummy policies?  Poor policing in the past?  A community that chooses to live in a self-imposed warzone?  All of the above to some degree?  Maybe instead of escalating things we ought to be looking for the root cause.

 

Very, very well said. 

In fairness I think there are many reasons for the crime epidemic. The biggest is that you have unemployed, angry young men who grew up without fathers and are wiling to act out. Combine that with the illegal drug trade and you'll get a disaster. Politicians certainly don't help. Than you have overworked police officers who are stressed out, have too many demands placed on them-you are bound to get trouble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Very, very well said. 

In fairness I think there are many reasons for the crime epidemic. The biggest is that you have unemployed, angry young men who grew up without fathers and are wiling to act out. Combine that with the illegal drug trade and you'll get a disaster. Politicians certainly don't help. Than you have overworked police officers who are stressed out, have too many demands placed on them-you are bound to get trouble. 

Absolutely true.  Whatever social issues are causing that need to be addressed for certain.  It is a fact that elected officials who are supposed to govern these areas are doing a miserable job but manage to keep getting re-elected on the same failed policies over and over, mainly by scapegoating others.  Then you have the declining family structure where in these areas over half the kids being born have no fathers.  Add to that city police departments that look and act increasingly like an occupying army rather than a civil law enforcement agency and voila'... Chaos.  There's plenty of blame to go around and that means it's easy to point fingers at each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Sounds like you are for certain types of restrictions. And that's fine. 

No, it's not fine.

When the government fears its citizen, there is freedom. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

I know who's afraid of whom, and there is no freedom.

17 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Just remember that any type of gun law won't be followed by criminals. 

The II is not about criminals. It's not about hunting. The II is about resisting tyranny. The others are marvelous fringe benefits, nothing more.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, unixknight said:

If crime in parts of our country is so severe that we need a militarized police force, complete with AFVs and heavy firepower, then something has gone very seriously wrong already.  Who's to blame?  Politicians' crummy policies?  Poor policing in the past?  A community that chooses to live in a self-imposed warzone?  All of the above to some degree? 

There are two primary reasons for these "self-imposed warzone(s)": welfare (which undermines families and self respect) and the war on drugs (which has turned some neighborhoods into man-free zones. In some cases, not only does the government make men unnecessary (because the woman doesn't need to marry to raise her children), but has taken the men out of the community and put them in jail.

Both cause violence, and both create war zones.

Lehi

PS: For anyone who knows, is there a way to use standard square brackets to indicate inserted/altered material in a quote without invoking formatting, specifically bracket s bracket and strikeout? LS

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

No, it's not fine.

 

 Lehi, it's fine that someone disagrees with us and has a different opinion. Not every issue is worth going to war over for every single post. Especially when two sides won't agree. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 Lehi, it's fine that someone disagrees with us and has a different opinion. Not every issue is worth going to war over for every single post. Especially when two sides won't agree. 

The problem is, when on compromises one fundamental issues, like the God-given right to self defense, there is no reclaiming what is inevitably lost.

This is one place where "going to war" is not merely "worth [it]" but absolutely mandatory.

I say again,

7 hours ago, LeSellers said:

The II is not about criminals. It's not about hunting. The II is about resisting tyranny. The others are marvelous fringe benefits, nothing more.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 hours ago, LeSellers said:

The problem is, when on compromises one fundamental issues, like the God-given right to self defense, there is no reclaiming what is inevitably lost.

This is one place where "going to war" is not merely "worth [it]" but absolutely mandatory.

I say again,

Lehi

 No, the problem is that not everyone agrees with you and I that's it a fundamental right. That's the problem. 

If you want to go to war over it, great. There is no problem whatsoever in dissenting on an online forum. That, my friend-is fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 No, the problem is that not everyone agrees with you and I that's it a fundamental right. That's the problem. 

If you want to go to war over it, great. There is no problem whatsoever in dissenting on an online forum. That, my friend-is fine. 

Then they must understand their error.

If you do not have the right to defend yourself, then you have no rights at all. If the defense allowed is limited to wetting yourself or puking on your attacker, you have lost anything like the real right. Only having access (or, at least the right to access) the same level of weaponry as a potential attacker equates to any reasonable semblance of the right to self defense.

Is there anyone who actually rejects the notion of a God-given right to self defense? I'm not asking about pacifists: they don't necessarily reject the right, but merely deny that they, as individuals, should exercise it, or, in other words, they choose not to defend themselves.

As to disagreeing with the position, of course others may choose to disagree, and to present their cases. That dissent does not negate the fundamental fact that self defense is nothing less than an inherent right of each individual. And I have never heard an argument to that effect that is not so hypothetical that is anything more than smoke.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
7 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Then they must understand their error.

 

Good luck in convincing them. People claim to have changed minds in online debates but I doubt it. You can't really change someones mind. They usually have to do it for themselves. 

And I don't blame them. If you expect them to change-you sort of have to do the same. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gator

You are right they can only change their own mind, but when they see truth repeated enough, they understand. 

There are far more followers in this world than leaders.

And the followers are constantly being fed disinformation, like the absurd fantasy that the gun commits the crime, not the criminal.

dc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, David13 said:

Gator

You are right they can only change their own mind, but when they see truth repeated enough, they understand. 

There are far more followers in this world than leaders.

And the followers are constantly being fed disinformation, like the absurd fantasy that the gun commits the crime, not the criminal.

dc

Like I've mentioned before, I'm pro-second amendment. Strongly in fact. CC holder in my old state and everything. 

I'm cynical that people change their minds, and I'm MORE cynical that people can convince them. It just doesn't work that way. Like you said, only they can change their own minds.

I changed my mind on many issues but only through doubt and discovery. I'm pretty cool like that. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2016 at 0:03 PM, unixknight said:

 

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.

 

Once is enough if you are the one driving. See the results at the end.

On my agency we have had at least a dozen over the years I was there get a bunch of holes in them...and some officers too. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JFYI- The following soliloquy is based on my experience, not some newspaper article or something my 70 year old uncle who was a cop told me.

 

Background: 24 years combined service in Military and LEO. Served on active duty in the Infantry and as a cop. Nearly 100% of police career was on the street at night on a large agency. Large being a matter of perspective, but it is a serious well-known agency. I was a Tactical officer (SWAT, SAU etc whatever you want to call it) and have been on hundreds of tactical incidents to include at least 100 high-risk warrants). Military-wise two deployments in combat and not behind a typewriter…behind a gun. Retired now thankfully.

Here goes- it is long but it may prove to be informative.

 As long as policing has been around, there have been critics of it from within and without the police community. Generally speaking over the years while I was a cop, our biggest enemy was our own administration. Typically police admins are made up of ladder climbers who did about three years of patrol and a couple other misc assignments and then somehow made it to top tier positions within the dept, but they ultimately know nothing about how to be a cop.

The public was often a bigger supporter of police than the admin was until probably the past ten years or so. Recent publicity surrounding officer involved shootings, militarization etc have led to much more criticism of the police (some deserved, some not) and hence the discussions. Part of the problem with this is that typically the opinion of the police in these matters is often disregarded. TYhe admins become our spokesmen but they are really just politicians and solidify their careers through administrative executions of street cops. The critics in the public are largely so ill informed in these matters it renders their opinions pretty much baseless. Reason being is A- they have no skin in the game other than taxes and B- they have no idea what is going on around them in their communities. Their only experience with the police is getting a ticket and what they see on the news.

Anyway- I’m going to address some things here about the police to help educate. I'm not here to spar, fight or pontificate on all the what-ifs. Just here to give perspective. Several topics are going to be elaborated on so get ready for a long post:

Selection of police officers: All agencies and states have different standards, but they are all similar in the basics. Background, physical/medical/mental. Fact is majority of US citizens including those you sit in church with (LDS too) cannot pass the background check in regards to morals and criminal behavior. A friend of mine who is LDS worked hiring for four years and he told me the backgrounds of the LDS applicants were every bit as screwed up as everyone else. The only reason he could tell some of them were LDS is because of their last name or the fact they spoke fluent Spanish and lived abroad for two year (mission). The general population of the US is ok with a certain level of crime (theft, fraud, drugs, sex offenses) so long as they were the ones doing it. As for all the other issues people vary in intelligence, physical agility and mental health. People often wonder why there are fat cops…well our administrations wont let us work out on duty like the Fire Depts do so legally they cannot enforce physical standards as a standard of continued employment. This being the case, the dept cant fire you for being fat. It is a personal thing if you want to be fit. I worked the street for nearly my entire career and have been involved in wayyy over a couple hundred forceful arrest and violent situations. I felt it was in my best interest to be as fit as possible so if anyone kills me with fists or a choke, they at least get a trip to the hospital to get bullet holes patched, bones set and eyeballs put back in their sockets

Mental health: Police applicants who make it that far in the hiring process undergo a psychological evaluation and yes some wingnuts make it through. Problem here is we are evaluating people for their potential to be mentally resilient to the mental rigors of the job, yet remain calm and collected enough to be able to reason through a situation without flipping out or making a horrible decision. We must remember that outside of someone applying from another agency, these applicants have never done this stuff nor ever been exposed to it. In fact, many nowadays have never been involved in a fist fight at school so we don’t know if they will even engage when called upon to do so.

Our field training programs are generally about 16-20 weeks long depending upon the agency. This is the time where we get to look at a recruit, mentor them and hopefully see them get involved in a violent mess so we can assess their ability to deal with it according to their training. One group we got out of the academy had a new recruit get shot in an ambush on his first night on duty. He still works there.

Bottom line for hiring:  Historically we only find 2/100 applicants suitable for hire. Most Americans cannot make the hiring process for a variety of reasons . This includes most of you reading this. That is for even the agencies with the lamest of hiring standards. That isn’t meant to be a slam, it is reality.

As the US has hundreds of agencies nationwide, the standard for hiring and training varies and is often geared towards LOCAL norms and community expectations. The larger agencies (500+ Officers) usually are on a similar sheet of music when it comes to standards, training and tactics. Many are members of CALEA.

Body Armor:  When these discussions of militarization come up oftentimes the exterior “military style” vests are a topic of discussion. Most of what you see on the street is a street cop is wearing it is what is called an “outer vest.” This is usually just a regular patrol vest in a different form. With all the equipment cops have to carry now, it is much easier to carry that stuff on an outer vest and leave the pistol, ammo and cuffs on a belt. Most agencies require a patrol officer to carry on their person   a pistol, three magazines of ammo, pepper spray, two handcuffs, expandable baton, taser w/extra cartridge, pens, notebook/cards, radio, vest etc… My old agency you could be disciplined if caught not carrying that stuff. The outer vest makes that easier and also it has been found to reduce the number of lower back issues. Back issues sideline many cops during the last 5 yrs of their career and you as a taxpayer get to pay for their medical and tax free retirement….so we are just saving you money.

Back to the vest: A patrol vest typically is a level 2 or 3 which essentially stops nearly all pistol rounds known to exist except some 22 mag and 5.7 FN cartridges. Also this will stop some very low velocity rifle and most shotgun projectiles. Keep in mind, this only works where the body is protected. Every officer I know of who has been shot whether they be dead or alive was hit in places other than the vest. These vests do not stop 99% of rifle rounds. A bullet fired from a 30.06 or a .223 will go through them like a hot knife through butter. Now there are some tactical vests that are level 3s which also have a ballistic plate in front and or the rear. These don’t offer much coverage but better than nothing. These plates will stop several impacts from an AK47, Ar-15 or a 450 marlin. Given that suspects and many cops are not the most stellar marksman while they are being shot at, even officers wearing these vests often get hit everywhere else except the plate. Enough said there.

Camo Uniforms:  Actually this is rare. My former agency doesn’t have any I have ever seen, but they do wear Olive Drab on the Tactical Team (SWAT, Special Assignments etc..) The vast majority of the other equipment they wear is also green or the same as the military uses. These officers are not running around on patrol wearing this stuff. They are exclusively used for high-risk situations so you will never see them. I live in the same city I worked and to this day I have never seen any patrol cops dressed in camo or anything other than the LAPD blue patrol uniform. I'm sure it happens here or there but as a matter of regular duty uniform I highly doubt it.


Some may say, well why do they need a military uniform??? Well these uniforms need to be functional for what they are doing, be durable and also flame retardant (nomex). The LAPD blue polyester uniform is not a good SWAT uniform. I wore mine a couple times on emergency callouts that lasted nearly a day and they were trashed when I was done.

Ultimately what does it matter? Once a situation has deteriorated to the point that someone is spraying bullets, has hostages or is trying to escape into the community to either get away or continue to do harm; who cares about their sensibilities when it comes to the cop’s current fashion statement?

Armored Vehicles:  I love this part. First of all, the conversation here makes it sound like the cops are out patrolling the city in these things. Like the military vests and camo uniforms discussed above, I have never seen this happen where I live or in the surrounding area. I have seen these vehicles, but they were obviously going to an incident, training or maintenance.

There are many types. As for the MRAPs, there are a lot out there, but most are sidelined because no one knows how to maintain them and most of the agencies who got them can’t afford the parts. So they are being stored for the most part. In my local area (6 million people) I don’t know of any agency that has one. Almost all use the bearcat because it was designed to deploy and protect cops and it does that very well. I won’t say how many my agency has, but it is more than 1. I only wish we had them when I was a tactical officer. In the past, most agencies used decommissioned armored cars.

What is an armored vehicle used for? Well it is used to deliver officers right into a hot scene while being protected or as a means of extracting people from gun battles with some armor to protect them. We have done this with civilians and cops. They are used to breach fortified homes while under fire…yes this happens and we have done it several times. In the Ferguson riot situation is was a platform higher than the crown where the observers (snipers) can watch the crowd from a vantage point and warn the front line about people approaching with bricks, weapons etc. If someone starts shooting, they have a hard time hiding from the guy on top of the armored car. The car also offers cover from bricks. Riot shields do not offer much protection from bricks.

Patrol cars with armor: Most new patrol cars these days come with an option to have ballistic panels inserted in the doors. The windows are still made of glass and the body of the car is still made of steel which handgun and rifle rounds will penetrate to varying degrees. Most agencies do not have these ballistic panels in their vehicles.

K-9 Use:  Oftentimes the public will ask why a K9 wasn’t used instead of some other form of force. Well simple reason: 99% of cops don’t have a dog in their car and many agencies don’t have one at all. The majority of incidents happen within a minute or two of contact and is over with at this point. Go research how much a dog, the training and the handler cost and get back with me if you still think you as a taxpayer can afford it. Oh, and when we do use a dog it is almost always labeled as excessive or racist anyway. They are a great tool though and they are used as often as necessary and when they are available. My agency always had 2-3 available each night, but they rarely could get to an incident before it was over. While a tactical officer we used the k9 all the time with great results.

TASER:  This is one of the best tools ever and it saves lives every day. Some people who would have otherwise been shot have lived productive lives and continued to commit even more crime. Perhgaps in some cases the bullet would have been a better option, but I digress. I easily would have at least 4 more shootings to my credit if it were not for the TASER. I’ll leave it at that.

Officers with mental health training:   Many police shootings involve a mentally ill person. I was involved in a suicide by cop. Wasn’t much time to get out a couch and talk things over with him as he opened up on us with a handgun as soon as we got to the house. That is how most of them go because they want us to kill them. Many police agencies get officers trained in how to deal with mentally ill people, but given the time necessary, the expense and the logistics of all of it; it is not feasible to train everyone. Cops get pretty good at it though due to experience. Looking back I probably dealt with a mentally ill person every single shift if I was to average out the encounters. I only got in a shooting with one so I feel pretty good about the results.

Officer Involved Shootings:   I Love this topic because it is so misrepresented and misunderstood.

The best line ever is,  “I don’t know why you guys shoot so many people, my uncle was a cop and he never even took his gun out of the holster cept to go poop.?”  My response is well that was 30 years ago and it wasn’t socially acceptable to shoot cops like it is now.

Anyway, this all depends on where you work. I spent the first 8 yrs working swings and graves in the nicest part of town and frankly I don’t know if I had a shift where we were not taking people off at gunpoint. Im sure there were some, but just to make up for it some shifts I did it three or four times. We had tons of gang activity and white trash meth heads in my precinct so gunplay isn’t too unusual. I recall one shift, my buddy and I were on a call and he ended up killing a suspect who attacked him with a knife. Before the end of shift, another officer just a mile south of us ended up in a shooting with another guy attacking people with a knife. Our area had shots fired calls every single shift, every single hour of the night and many times we got there and there were people on scene with holes in them. Some were dead and some alive. Sounds pretty bad, but is doesn’t even hold a candle to LA.

Most officer involved shootings happen within seconds of making contact with the suspect. Sometimes you don’t even get to get out of your car. One buddy of mine got shot several times as soon as he knocked on a door and another one took a couple rounds as soon as he drove up on the call. The other responding officers killed both suspects who did those shootings.

I have personally been in two shootings and on-scene for between 15 and 20 others. A couple were while I was a Tactical Officer (SWAT) and the rest while in patrol. I have been shot at quite a bit mostly by pistols, but for sure one AK47, couple AR15s and a shotgun. I was on scene for a shooting with a suicide by cop guy who in my opinion didn’t need to get shot (yet), but was by someone who was more scared for their life than I was at the time so I guess its all good. We paid out on a lawsuit on that one. Small payout, but we lost the claim nonetheless.

Body cams will bring more of this to real life in the future, but for now you will have to just believe we don’t want to get into these shootings. I and we will pull the trigger if it comes do a decision between which of us gets to die though. I will say that much.

As for the “high frequency” of these shootings, there are less now than there have been in a long time. They just get more publicity now. While I worked patrol, only about half the shootings our dept got involved with ever made the paper or the TV.

“Just shoot them in the arm or leg or use Judo…”  You do it idiot if you are that good.

Here is the deal; that is often said about dealing with knife wielding suspects.  As many stabbings and shootings I have seen I can comfortable say I would rather get shot than stabbed. My job description doesn’t say I need to take a slashing knife attack just so I can nicely get a suspect into cuffs. People who want us to do that have never seen knife wounds. If you want to see some Google is your friend. As for me: pull a knife on me and I will shoot you. I may even give you some verbals to drop the knife if you give me a chance.

Cops are never held accountable or arrested for crimes:  False- I personally have arrested two cops. My agency has arrested several of our officers over the years for a variety of stuff. The administration at nearly every agency I have associated with is regarded as mush more perilous to an officer’s career than the public can be. In Arizona we have an organization which oversees and review terminations (AZPOST). Go to their website and read about the various things cops get terminated for here.

In the personal lives of cops, per-capita we are much less likely to break any law (except for traffic laws) than their own neighbors. Just in my own neighborhood I know of several people who are regular law-breakers and many of them are in my ward. Stealing, fraud, drugs and other violations. The other ones I don’t know about because the ward gossip mill doesn’t know about it.

ON EDIT...I forgot Guns: We carry Glocks primarily. Flashlights can be mounted to these pistols to aid in building searches and free up an officer's support hand to do other things like...suppor the pistol to increase the quality of marksmanship.

Ar-15s. Yep lots out there. In my region we went to these about 15 yrs ago after there were several gunbattles with suspects who wewre armed with AR15s or AK47s and wearing body armor. Traditionally at that time SWAT teams were armed with MP5 submachine guns (terrific CQB weapon for its time btw) which are 9mm. These bullets dont go through body armor so we got AR15s instead. Also the patrol shotgun went largely by the wayside becuase an officer could more effectively handle an AR15 as opposed to a shotgun shooting slug or 00Buck. The ar15 ammo we use is tipped with Hornady vmax (or similar) bullets as they are highly frangible and dont go through much in terms of barriers or people.

I have only seen a few that are full auto and they reside with the swat team. The majority of these rifles are in the cars of patrol officers and they are semi-auto.

Anyway- just some of my experiences with police work. I am also a critic of cops to some degree, but this militarization thing is a bunch of garbage. I mean think about it: The average ratio of cop to citizen in the US is 2/1000. Does anyone really think that the police could take over our communities? I know in my city the ratio is more like 1.25/1000 so even less of a chance.

Oftentimes the equipment they carry is military style in terms of looks or firepower. As for looks, yes. As for firepower, not even close. My platoon in Iraq had 16 humvees, 16 .50 cal MGs, 8 M240B MG, AT4, frags etc and everyone with an M4 carbine or M249 SAW.  50 troops armed like that. I have never seen any police organization in this entire country who has that kind of firepower at their disposal. I know for a fact if I brought in that Platoon to this city I could lay waste to a significant number of the cops before we were nickel and dimed to death by the armed citizen or police. Until that time, though the police would have a heck of a job on their hands dealing with firepower that can trash cop cars and buildings from 1000 meters.  Their helicopters would only get a couple passes before the airspace was filled with 50 cal rounds.

People who say the cops firepower mirrors the military are crazy. They say that because their view is based not on knowledge, but on suppositions and fear. Go join the Army or Marines if you want to see what firepower is. Compared to that, our police might as well not even be armed.

So- militarization???? Not even close. As a former cop and military guy I can comfortably say we have nothing to worry about. If you are worried about it quit participating in riots and running a methlab in your home or dealing arms. If you are not doing those things you have nothing to worry about. I am in the same boat as you and I lose not one wink of sleep over it.

I will close with this: There is not one single police agency who has written in its job description that police officers are supposed to get stabbed, shot, beaten up etc.  The law doesn’t even mandate we subject ourselves to that risk. In fact, the law has established that we have absolutely no duty at all to risk out lives for anyone. The law does stipulate though (at least in AZ) that a police officer has no duty whatsoever to retreat….. ie run away.  That isn’t in our nature anyway, but in the future in many municipalities I see the continues hostility towards the police to lead to a situation where they wont get there till it is definitely safe to do so. We are already seeing that is NY, Chicago and a few other places. Their crime is skyrocketing because it is easier for the cops to just go clean up than it is to do their jobs. I mean hey it’s a lot easier to defend what happens if you were never there…LOL  

Edited by paracaidista508
spelling, punc, more info bla bla bla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some more:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj0mM6QsILNAhVB_GMKHVRSCekQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fksn.com%2F2016%2F01%2F22%2Fflorida-police-officer-wounded-in-ambush-shooting%2F&psig=AFQjCNHnEER4DjwI901XtpClkzSeZhpdIA&ust=1464717522841424

cop11138892760.jpg 

 

150613085016-01-dallas-shooting---police

squad2.jpg

088771.jpg

 

Well these dont exactly illustrate penetration thru metal, but they do illustrate the need for armor. Of course, there are a certain number of police officer murders we (American Public) are ok with so long as no one is offended by some armor or a couple of guns that look full auto. I guess the challenge is finding out exactly how many police officer's deaths we are content to have until we stop worrying about what kind of weapons or armor they have available.

On this note, the same applies to our military and their dead who we honor today. Fortunately we are not so picky about what they look like or the equip they use because we always want them to win.


Image result for arlington national cemetery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2016 at 5:47 PM, unixknight said:

Second, it's the same objection I raised in the past.  If you equip people like soldiers, they'll start acting like soldiers.  I hope I don't need to explain again why that's a bad thing but I certainly can.

Third, it reinforces the us v. them mentality for both the community and the police department.  I think we've had quite enough of that already.

Interesting timing on all of this: Today in Houston Texas. Suspect firing on citizens with an AR15. First cop car that arrives gets 20 bullets fired into it. Miraculously the cop is either lightly wounded or not at all. SWAT arrives in their mean and menacing camo uniforms with their mean and menacing military style body armor and they act like soldiers, find the shooter and kill him. Theres news clips out there and they have armored cars and camo uniforms too. Looking pretty bad. I bet the public really cant get over the fact some cops wearing camo and military style hardware saved their butts.

So how is that a bad thing??? because the cops were not wearing shirt and tie and getting shot up like everyone else? If it makes you feel any better, one of the cops was wearing a military style vest with an armor plate in it and he was shot in the plate- likely saved his life.

This is exactly why the cops have some military style equip----because it works!

https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/185797006-2-dead-multiple-wounded-in-Houston-shooting-rampage/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Background: 24 years combined service in Military and LEO.

Glad you're still with us, brother.  By your screenname, were you a paratrooper?

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

The public was often a bigger supporter of police than the admin was until probably the past ten years or so. Recent publicity surrounding officer involved shootings, militarization etc have led to much more criticism of the police (some deserved, some not) and hence the discussions. Part of the problem with this is that typically the opinion of the police in these matters is often disregarded. TYhe admins become our spokesmen but they are really just politicians and solidify their careers through administrative executions of street cops. The critics in the public are largely so ill informed in these matters it renders their opinions pretty much baseless. Reason being is A- they have no skin in the game other than taxes and B- they have no idea what is going on around them in their communities. Their only experience with the police is getting a ticket and what they see on the news.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of criticism do you feel is deserved?

As to the critics in the public... I agree most people react emotionally to whatever they see on the news and don't really understand the issues, but the way you phrased your comment here is pretty dismissive of any public criticism, which I find troubling because ultimately the community is who hires you to enforce the laws and uphold their rights.  To be dismissive of them is to separate yourself from their concerns, even when they're legitimate, and that's a serious problem.

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Anyway- I’m going to address some things here about the police to help educate.

I always get nervous when someone says they're here to "educate."  That usually means they expect the information and point of view to flow in only one direction and that's no way to engage in a civil discussion.  I hope that won't be the case here.

There's a lot to respond to here, so I'll try to be as brief as I can in my initial response.

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Selection of police officers: All agencies and states have different standards, but they are all similar in the basics. Background, physical/medical/mental. Fact is majority of US citizens including those you sit in church with (LDS too) cannot pass the background check in regards to morals and criminal behavior.

Good.  This is as it should be.

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Mental health: Police applicants who make it that far in the hiring process undergo a psychological evaluation and yes some wingnuts make it through.

The issue is just how many wingnuts are making it through, or to what extent to the rigors of the job turn someone into a wingnut after the initial screen.  When we talk about a case like Michael Slager, who we generally agree acted improperly (to put it mildly) and was probably one of those wingnuts you mentioned, we often forget that when he moved the taser to tamper with the scene, he did it right in front of another officer who was nearby.  It wasn't this officer who called him out on his actions, it was the guy who took the video.  So was this other officer, who apparently saw what happened (or at least, the aftermath) another wingnut?  Or was he protecting his co-worker?  See, these are the questions the informed public wants to know the answers to.  Would Slager still have been prosecuted if not for that video?  A lot of people would say "probably not" and that lack of trust is the issue here, and you can't just dismiss that with "well the public is just ignorant."

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

One group we got out of the academy had a new recruit get shot in an ambush on his first night on duty. He still works there.

Glad to know he recovered.

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

That is for even the agencies with the lamest of hiring standards. That isn’t meant to be a slam, it is reality.

In the county where I live, candidates for the police academy no longer have to have a college degree.  My problem with that is they're now hiring guys with even less life experience than a college graduate would have. 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Body Armor:  When these discussions of militarization come up oftentimes the exterior “military style” vests are a topic of discussion.

Not for me.  As I've already mentioned in this thread, I have no problem with body armor.

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Camo Uniforms:  Actually this is rare. My former agency doesn’t have any I have ever seen, but they do wear Olive Drab on the Tactical Team (SWAT, Special Assignments etc..) The vast majority of the other equipment they wear is also green or the same as the military uses. These officers are not running around on patrol wearing this stuff. They are exclusively used for high-risk situations so you will never see them. I live in the same city I worked and to this day I have never seen any patrol cops dressed in camo or anything other than the LAPD blue patrol uniform. I'm sure it happens here or there but as a matter of regular duty uniform I highly doubt it.


Some may say, well why do they need a military uniform??? Well these uniforms need to be functional for what they are doing, be durable and also flame retardant (nomex). The LAPD blue polyester uniform is not a good SWAT uniform. I wore mine a couple times on emergency callouts that lasted nearly a day and they were trashed when I was done.

So do these guys need those colors for all the warrants they're serving in the woods?  

There's no reason to wear military olive drab.  That reinforces the soldier mentality in the minds of the public as well as those wearing it.  I've seen plenty of officers in fatigues that were at least the same color as their regular uniforms (blue) so yes, they can wear something functional and flame retardant. 

Never see them?  Brother, I work in Baltimore.

"It creates the mentality that the police officers are warriors armed against a hostile enemy, but the hostile enemy that they're armed against is us," said David Rocah, spokesman for the Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union."

-source

Somebody's seein' them.  A lot.

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Ultimately what does it matter? Once a situation has deteriorated to the point that someone is spraying bullets, has hostages or is trying to escape into the community to either get away or continue to do harm; who cares about their sensibilities when it comes to the cop’s current fashion statement?

Implicit in that statement is that the police showed up already in that gear.  If it doesn't matter, as you say, then why the OD to begin with?

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

As for the MRAPs, there are a lot out there, but most are sidelined because no one knows how to maintain them and most of the agencies who got them can’t afford the parts.

Then why have them, and why so rigorously defend having them?

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

What is an armored vehicle used for? Well it is used to deliver officers right into a hot scene while being protected or as a means of extracting people from gun battles with some armor to protect them. We have done this with civilians and cops. They are used to breach fortified homes while under fire…yes this happens and we have done it several times. In the Ferguson riot situation is was a platform higher than the crown where the observers (snipers) can watch the crowd from a vantage point and warn the front line about people approaching with bricks, weapons etc. If someone starts shooting, they have a hard time hiding from the guy on top of the armored car. The car also offers cover from bricks. Riot shields do not offer much protection from bricks.

Snipers.  I'm trying to imagine a police sniper firing into a crowd of protesters and not see this as a serious problem.

The problem is that if a situation is escalating, it should not be law enforcement escalating it.  To my knowledge, none of the rioters in Ferguson were riding around in armored cars or setting up sniper nests.  The presence of the armored vehicles during those riots were for the purpose of intimidation.  Period.  You might say there were there just in case, but these things were right out front, not in reserve.  They also had guys in the cupola pointing weapons into the crowd, not in a safe direction.  That's what you do to intimidate someone.

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

TASER:  This is one of the best tools ever and it saves lives every day. Some people who would have otherwise been shot have lived productive lives and continued to commit even more crime. Perhgaps in some cases the bullet would have been a better option, but I digress. I easily would have at least 4 more shootings to my credit if it were not for the TASER. I’ll leave it at that.

Shootings to your "credit?"  I find that comment disgusting, sir.  I hope this isn't some indicator that you're proud of them.  I know it's a matter of semantics, but this is one of those important distinctions that needs to be made between a soldier and a police officer.  It's a credit if the soldier eliminates threats.  When a police officer has to do it, it should be because it's absolutely necessary.  Not something to take credit for.  I've been following a case where a suspect was killed while crawling on all fours toward the police.  6 officers were present, and the one who felt his life was suddenly in danger happened to be the same guy whose AR-15 had the words "you're f***ed" written on the ejection cover.  Before you dismiss me as an ignorant member of the public, bear in mind that this particular officer was fired and arrested, so I guess his superiors felt this was a problem too.

I've done a little research into tasers and it turns out some law enforcement agencies have stopped using them because of the risks.  The problem is that because it's a non-lethal use of force, it tends to get used more often than it should.  Cases where people have died from being hit with tasers usually do so because they're hit with multiple tasers at once, or hit repeatedly such that the subject is exposed to the voltage far longer than what is considered "safe."  I agree that tasers are better than guns in most cases, but the training is horrible in too many cases.

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

The best line ever is,  “I don’t know why you guys shoot so many people, my uncle was a cop and he never even took his gun out of the holster cept to go poop.?”  My response is well that was 30 years ago and it wasn’t socially acceptable to shoot cops like it is now.

 

Who said it's socially acceptable?  I'm not aware of anybody on this forum with that perspective but maybe I just missed a post or two somewhere.

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

I was on scene for a shooting with a suicide by cop guy who in my opinion didn’t need to get shot (yet), but was by someone who was more scared for their life than I was at the time so I guess its all good. We paid out on a lawsuit on that one. Small payout, but we lost the claim nonetheless.

So this other officer fatally shot a suspect which, in your opinion, wasn't necessary at the time but it's all good?  Seriously?  The fact that the department lost the lawsuit suggests that the shooting was not justified, but you're okay with it because....?  Because it was a fellow officer?  I get it.  You don't want to second guess someone who's on the line with you.  Can you see where this generates mistrust among the public?  I guess the officer who saw Slager plant the taser didn't want to second guess him either.

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Body cams will bring more of this to real life in the future

And cell phone cameras. 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

As for the “high frequency” of these shootings, there are less now than there have been in a long time.

You can't say this for certain. The FBI doesn't track officer involved shootings so we don't know what the picture looks like at a national level.  Individual entities can opt to send that data to the FBI but there's no requirement, and only about 3% of agencies actually do.  There's also no mechanism at the national level for tracking the difference between justified and unjustified shootings, nor is there a way to  track encounters that turn violent but are not fatal.  

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

“Just shoot them in the arm or leg or use Judo…”  You do it idiot if you are that good.

I don't think anybody on this forum has said that.  Good to know you're above name-calling if they did, though.

...oh...

So when you say stuff like this "I'm not here to spar, fight or pontificate on all the what-ifs."  I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced.

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Here is the deal; that is often said about dealing with knife wielding suspects.  As many stabbings and shootings I have seen I can comfortable say I would rather get shot than stabbed. My job description doesn’t say I need to take a slashing knife attack just so I can nicely get a suspect into cuffs. People who want us to do that have never seen knife wounds. If you want to see some Google is your friend. As for me: pull a knife on me and I will shoot you. I may even give you some verbals to drop the knife if you give me a chance.

Has anyone called upon you to allow yourself to be stabbed?  In what way does your camo protect you from this?

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Cops are never held accountable or arrested for crimes:  False- I personally have arrested two cops. My agency has arrested several of our officers over the years for a variety of stuff. The administration at nearly every agency I have associated with is regarded as mush more perilous to an officer’s career than the public can be. In Arizona we have an organization which oversees and review terminations (AZPOST). Go to their website and read about the various things cops get terminated for here.

Nobody has said it never happens.  What I've said, and what others are saying, is that it doesn't happen enough.  The balance is getting better as body cams and public video recording have become common.  Look at it this way:  Slager didn't know he was being recorded, but apparently had an expectation that his shenanigans would protect him.  (There are plenty more examples besides Slager, but his is a useful one to make a point.  I'm not interested in smearing cops by going out and dredging up a big bunch of links to examples of unjustified shootings.  Hopefully, we're all aware of that stuff already.)

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

Anyway- just some of my experiences with police work. I am also a critic of cops to some degree, but this militarization thing is a bunch of garbage. I mean think about it: The average ratio of cop to citizen in the US is 2/1000. Does anyone really think that the police could take over our communities? I know in my city the ratio is more like 1.25/1000 so even less of a chance.

So the only legitimate concern we, as the public, should have is whether the police departments have enough military hardware to "take over" the community?  (Whatever that means.)  

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

I know for a fact if I brought in that Platoon to this city I could lay waste to a significant number of the cops before we were nickel and dimed to death by the armed citizen or police.

The issue isn't what would happen between militarized police and an actual combat ready platoon.  The issue is the widening divide between the community and officers who look increasingly like soldiers and not like the public servants they're supposed to be.  

 

On 5/29/2016 at 2:15 PM, paracaidista508 said:

If you are worried about it quit participating in riots and running a methlab in your home or dealing arms. If you are not doing those things you have nothing to worry about.

To me, that sounds a lot like "Why should you exercise your 4th and 5th Amendment rights?  If you're not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about."  I don't worry about the guy behind the trigger today.  I worry about who might be behind it tomorrow.

As for all the photos of the police cars with bullet damage... I'm not sure why you addressed me personally about them.  I've said through this entire thread that I support the idea of putting armor and even bullet proof glass in police cruisers.  What are you trying to convince me of?  That officers get shot at in their cars?  Mirkwood already made that point and I didn't argue it with him.

 

15 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

This is exactly why the cops have some military style equip----because it works!

So would an AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.  Maybe "because it works!" isn't enough reason all by itself.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On @unixknight's main point... Personally, I don't understand how soldiers are not part of the community... or that they create a "divide".  Soldiers are very much a big part of our community and we are with them.  We just spent Memorial Day honoring those who died.  We're gonna spend Veteran Day honoring those who lived.  Now, if they're wearing North Korean military gear then yeah, big divide.  I think the people who think that soldiers are apart from us are the Jane Fondas...

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