WaPo - Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing


PDA






F4GIB
February 6, 2006, 04:35 PM
A legitimate question: [snip]officials and county residents need to ask themselves if they want to live in a community in which routine police work and vice warrants [for non violent offenses] are carried out by officers armed with gear more appropriate to a battlefield.[snip]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020302389.html

If you enjoyed reading about "WaPo - Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GTSteve03
February 6, 2006, 04:39 PM
[snip]officials and county residents need to ask themselves if they want to live in a community in which routine police work and vice warrants [for non violent offenses] are carried out by officers armed with gear more appropriate to a battlefield.[snip]
Simple answer. Police officers are more concerned nowadays about going home to their families and covering their own butts than actually helping to keep social order. That's why you see such gross overuse of force and weapons that back in the day wouldn't even be dreamed of in a big Mafia bust. They're simply more concerned about themselves than the people they are employed to protect. :scrutiny:

joab
February 6, 2006, 04:57 PM
I agree LEOS should be limited to their side arms and shotguns in extreme situations. It worked well enough for them in LA and Miami

fjolnirsson
February 6, 2006, 05:02 PM
Simple answer. Police officers are more concerned nowadays about going home to their families and covering their own butts than actually helping to keep social order. That's why you see such gross overuse of force and weapons that back in the day wouldn't even be dreamed of in a big Mafia bust. They're simply more concerned about themselves than the people they are employed to protect.
__________________

For the most part, I've found this to be true. The reason? The training. In the academy I attended, we were reminded daily of "Rule # 1 of policework-go home alive." We were taught that our safety was much more important than that of non police officers. We were told to always err on the side of "officer safety". It's systematic conditioning of the mind.

It's too bad, really. It serves to drive in that wedge between police and the rest of us that much further. But really, there are so many things pushing on that wedge, from both sides. Sad.

Mad Chemist
February 6, 2006, 05:08 PM
I agree LEOS should be limited to their side arms and shotguns in extreme situations. It worked well enough for them in LA and Miami

You are being sarcastic, right? These guys, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: make it a little more obvious.

Occasionally, cops need things like Evil Black Rifles and accurate long-range weapons. Although they don't use them often, it still helps to have the appropriate tools when they are needed. I'm more concerned with my local PD's tactics and training. There is an obvoius need here for our city police force. There have never been any SNAFUs involving special weapons here, but there have been plenty involving character and training or lack therof.

JH

fjolnirsson
February 6, 2006, 05:10 PM
I agree LEOS should be limited to their side arms and shotguns in extreme situations. It worked well enough for them in LA and Miami

Not at all. There's no reason why cops shouldn't have acess to Ar-15s and such. However, surrounding a non violent subject with heavily armed men is a bit of overkill. The LA bank robbery was an excellent example of why cops need access to superior firepower, if that's the one you mean. Which Miami incident were you refering to? The only one I can think of offhand is the FBI shootout, where the agents didn't take their jobs seriously enough to use the equipment they were provided with.

buzz_knox
February 6, 2006, 05:22 PM
I agree LEOS should be limited to their side arms and shotguns in extreme situations. It worked well enough for them in LA and Miami

There's middle ground between unarmed bobbies and cops looking to be Delta Force.

The issue ultimately comes down to the inherent conflict between officer safety and suspect/public rights and safety. For years, the pendulum has swung in favor of the former at the expense of the latter. So, officers were safer as no knock warrants, SWAT operations for menial crimes (i.e. being a bookie), and the "officer safety above all else" mentality. The cost was that when the cops made mistakes, civilians paid the price. Personally, I think a lot of the actions were incredibly short sighted, looking for a temporary gain in exchange for a long term loss. The officers may be safer in a given situation, but the long term effect is loss of trust, respect, willingness to cooperate, willingness to fund budgets, and, eventually, the conversion of "us vs. them" going from an attitude I've heard cops express from their own mouths (usually bemoaning what is being taught to younger recruits) to actual battle lines.

progunner1957
February 6, 2006, 05:28 PM
officials and county residents need to ask themselves
County residents can "ask themselves" till they are blue in the face - and "officials" will do whatever they want, not what We The People want (as is the custom for "officials").:fire: :fire:

pcf
February 6, 2006, 05:46 PM
Steve, read about a guy named Frank Hamer, or these fellows known as Pinkerton detectives, and then tell us about weapons and tactics that cops could only dream of using.

There's too much money being thrown at police departments from local governments and DHS. Either they have to justify the intake of funds or lose them. When the government throws money at an unidentified problem, new ones emerge. It's not "Officer safety" that's the problem, the problem is that there are too many SWAT teams, many have been haphazardly thrown together to justify spending money, and now they need a justification to exist.

M-Rex
February 6, 2006, 05:57 PM
Simple answer. Police officers are more concerned nowadays about going home to their families and covering their own butts than actually helping to keep social order. That's why you see such gross overuse of force and weapons that back in the day wouldn't even be dreamed of in a big Mafia bust. They're simply more concerned about themselves than the people they are employed to protect. :scrutiny:

I have to agree. What with all the litigious special interest groups, cop-hating bigots, money-sniffing lawyers, politically correct administrations, vacuous civilian review boards, and anarchistic civil libertarian nutjobs, I'm surprised that good people still make it a career.

Not to mention the bonafied criminal element.:rolleyes:

TequilaMockingbird
February 6, 2006, 06:12 PM
According to a Jan. 26 front-page story in The Post, Culosi had emerged from his home to meet an undercover officer when a police tactical unit swarmed around him. An officer's gun discharged,

The gun did it!

killing the suspect. Culosi, police said, was unarmed and had displayed no threatening behavior.

It's unlikely that the officer who shot Culosi did so intentionally.

Also unlikely that the officer will get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Dimes to doughnuts that no officer will be even fired, much less indicted over this homicide.

Can you imagine the consequences if a citizen's gun "discharged" unintentionally and killed an officer? They'd charge him with capital murder.

But it's also unlikely that the investigation into this shooting will address why police sent a military-style unit to arrest an optometrist under investigation for a nonviolent crime and why the officers had their guns drawn when approaching a man with no history of violence.

It's unlikely that any "investigation" of the incident will be anything more than a whitewash designed to assure the sheep that this was merely an tragic isolated incident.

Let's hope his family hires a good trial lawyer for the civil lawsuit. Were I to sit on that jury, I'd mete out some stiff justice to Fairfax if appropriate.:cuss:

Bartholomew Roberts
February 6, 2006, 06:24 PM
Well considering police are doing a job that I don't want to have to do myself; I support them having the same tools I use for my own less serious needs such as semi-auto rifles and pistols.

At the same time, I think that there is a certain desire to justify the expenditure on equipment and training by using this equipment in situations where a softer approach would probably be more successful. Then again, I don't have a lot of the negative experiences that these guys do... I can see where it might be difficult from that side of the fence to know when to play it easy and when to bring out the big guns.

Otherguy Overby
February 6, 2006, 06:28 PM
Here's how I feel.

Police should comply with ALL gun control law in their particular state.

IOW, in CA police weapons should be transported locked in the trunk unloaded and magazines empty. They should apply for CCW licenses and receive them at no more than the average rate for citizens in their locality. If they take the weapons home all safe storage laws apply.

Police pen carry should be legal only where it is permitted for civilians. Police shall disarm prior to entering any "gun free" zone and "safely" store their weapons in their vehicles only if the vehicles are somewhere it is legal or the vehicles must be moved.

CA police should face a felony charge if their evil black rifle was not registered prior to 2001 per CA law. Oh and discharging a weapon from inside a vehicle is a felony.

New issue police handguns will be subject to DROS, NCIC, any other requirements and a 10 business day waiting period, too.

IOW, any restrictions of civilian rights shall be applied equally to all, including JBTs.

Finally, if the police don't like the law, they should vote to change it.

It's for the children and if it just saves one life...

fjolnirsson
February 6, 2006, 07:03 PM
Otherguy,

I'd vote for you.

GTSteve03
February 6, 2006, 07:09 PM
Steve, read about a guy named Frank Hamer, or these fellows known as Pinkerton detectives, and then tell us about weapons and tactics that cops could only dream of using.
Hamer used .38 Supers and semi-auto hunting rifles. Stuff that everyone could still order and own as far as I could tell, back then. In fact it's funny how apparently inadequate the much-vaunted .45ACP was against body armor from the Prohibition era!

The Pinkertons seemed to be quite notorious for killing striking workers for large corporate sponsors. Just the type of people to be emulating, I see!

There's too much money being thrown at police departments from local governments and DHS. Either they have to justify the intake of funds or lose them. When the government throws money at an unidentified problem, new ones emerge. It's not "Officer safety" that's the problem, the problem is that there are too many SWAT teams, many have been haphazardly thrown together to justify spending money, and now they need a justification to exist.
I don't see anyone forcing the departments to spend the money on SWAT teams. I think the problem is at least partially the "big boy toys" syndrome with the departments wanting to spend the money on shiny new guns that they can "rock and roll" with.

Thefabulousfink
February 6, 2006, 07:14 PM
Should police officers have access (and be trained in the use of) body-armor, assault rifles, SMGs, and sniper rifles: Yes.

Should they use them at every opportunity(sp): Of course not.

GTSteve03
February 6, 2006, 07:19 PM
Should police officers have access (and be trained in the use of) body-armor, assault rifles, SMGs, and sniper rifles: Yes.

Should they use them at every opportunity(sp): Of course not.
Agreed, but only to a certain extent. Not ALL police officers need that kind of training, nor should they. The police are there first and foremost to enforce the peace, and you don't do that by militarizing and turning your own constituents against you with overt shows of unnecessary force.

joab
February 6, 2006, 07:23 PM
These guys, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: make it a little more obvious.But that takes all the fun out of it..

When officers are greeted with civility by the worst criminal when they come to arrest them and when a simple domestic call or a traffic stop stop being the number one deadly encounter for LEOs then I support giving them anything they need, with in reason. If I can own it they should have official access to it.

If dressing like ninja commandos gives them an edge without violating my rights then let them wear fifty pounds of tac gear to make a traffic stop if it pleases them.

I tend not to put much stock in scary appearances, the last official group that did banned a bunch of stuff

Northwet
February 6, 2006, 07:39 PM
I spent more than 10 years overseas in the military. Most police officers there carry submachine guns and no one was concerned about it. Its a matter of perspective, I guess. As far as SWAT overseas, there are anti-terrorist police as well as military police, such as the Italian Carbineris and Turkish Jannasaries.
Probably a few horror stories out there but I saw respect on both sides and no problems.
North'wet"

Otherguy Overby
February 6, 2006, 07:41 PM
But that takes all the fun out of it..

When officers are greeted with civility by the worst criminal when they come to arrest them and when a simple domestic call or a traffic stop stop being the number one deadly encounter for LEOs then I support giving them anything they need, with in reason. If I can own it they should have official access to it.


Being a cab driver, pizza delivery guy or convenience store worker is much more hazardous than being a cop. Shouldn't they have the same gear and arms?

The Drew
February 6, 2006, 07:48 PM
The reality is that there is too much money being spent on equipment and not enough on good old training. And the training that IS given is militaristic in nature.

There are FEW times that military tactics should be used in order to make an arrest or to stop a bad guy or several bad guys, However many local LEO organizations use any chance they get to justify breaking out all the toys...

If the focus was put back on good solid policework and enforcement, the wedge between the police and the people can start to heal....

Bigreno
February 6, 2006, 08:01 PM
IOW, in CA police weapons should be transported locked in the trunk unloaded and magazines empty. They should apply for CCW licenses and receive them at no more than the average rate for citizens in their locality. If they take the weapons home all safe storage laws apply.
.
.
.
It's for the children and if it just saves one life...

Thank you Mrs. Brady. Your opinions have been noted.


Police pen carry should be legal only where it is permitted for civilians. Police shall disarm prior to entering any "gun free" zone and "safely" store their weapons in their vehicles only if the vehicles are somewhere it is legal or the vehicles must be moved.

...because we all know that criminals legally stow their weapons before going on a rampage in a school or robbing a bank.:scrutiny:

Why is it when something goes wrong all of a sudden it becomes an issue of equipment? It automaticly goes from not operating in line with SOP and training to "well they should not go around looking like military and this wouldn't happen." It parallels the anti's views about gun control. If it looks scary, it's has to be bad and they shouldn't be allowed to have it. What a load of BS. I don't care if they set up machinegun implacements and rope in from Blackhawks as long as SOP's are followed and the gear is used in accordance with it's design.

Remeber guys, big black scary guns don't kill people. Men with their head up their rear while handling them do. Don't blame the gear when the operation goes bad.

Brett Bellmore
February 6, 2006, 08:22 PM
Well considering police are doing a job that I don't want to have to do myself; I support them having the same tools I use for my own less serious needs such as semi-auto rifles and pistols.

The problem is, way too often the police are doing a job NOBODY should be doing. We've got a WAR on "drugs", really on that portion of the citizenry that choses to use them, why should we be suprised at the police turning into soldiers, or treating the country as an occupied territory?

RioShooter
February 6, 2006, 08:49 PM
There are FEW times that military tactics should be used in order to make an arrest or to stop a bad guy or several bad guys, However many local LEO organizations use any chance they get to justify breaking out all the toys...



Very perceptive observation!

From the local Fairfax paper:

Fairfax County Police standard practice is to use SWAT teams in the execution of search warrants.

Sam
February 6, 2006, 08:53 PM
Law enforcement officers should stick to enforcing the law as opposed to becoming the semi militarized force they are trying to become. I don't mind if they want to keep a few gunfighters on the payroll for when uglieness happens, but Joe Average Cop needs to keep a lower profile to do his job.

The militarization of police forces around the country stems from many causes, primarily:
1. The need to absorb an excess of funds available from sources that had no right to extort them from the public
2. Elected officials and police chiefs who are on a bit of a power trip and want to keep up with the Jonses in the next jurisdiction.
3. a throw more dollars at it mentality

Particularly agravating is thier insistance on refering to the citizenry as "civillians":
New Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
1. One who is skilled in civil or Roman law.
2. Any person not in military or naval service

Time to get off the high horse boys

Sam

Old Dog
February 6, 2006, 08:57 PM
Allrighty then, another psychic onboard ...
Also unlikely that the officer will get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Dimes to doughnuts that no officer will be even fired, much less indicted over this homicide.

It's unlikely that any "investigation" of the incident will be anything more than a whitewash designed to assure the sheep that this was merely an tragic isolated incident. Surprised it took so many posts before someone said these things. It was however, to be expected in any thread about law enforcement.

It's great we have so many THR members who can see the future.

I don't see anyone forcing the departments to spend the money on SWAT teams. I think the problem is at least partially the "big boy toys" syndrome with the departments wanting to spend the money on shiny new guns that they can "rock and roll" with.No doubt you base this statement on all the conversations you've personally had with chiefs of police, county sheriffs, your city council, county commissioners and all those you personally know who authorize law enforcement procurement and spending, correct?
There's too much money being thrown at police departments from local governments and DHS.The reality is that there is too much money being spent on equipment
I'm not sure this is not exactly the way it works from what I've heard from a law enforcement administrator in my family. And when money does come from the federal government, it's usually earmarked for specific purposes ... More likely is the underfunded department that doesn't even have enough money for training, or maintaing patrol vehicles, or paying salaries of cops, dispatchers, support staff ... let along funding all kinds of new, high-tech ninja gear for its SWAT bubbas. And all too often, agencies are forced to rely on asset forfeiture from drug seizures; some funds that come from on high do have to be spent (as noted) on hardware or lost; the fact is though, there are departments out there that would rather spend more money on cops' salaries and training, yet are unable to ...

treating the country as an occupied territory?Another phrase I just knew would pop up in a law enforcement related thread. Sheesh. Things must be tough in my ol' home state if the cops there are treating it as an occupied territory ...

Elected officials and police chiefs who are on a bit of a power trip and want to keep up with the Jonses in the next jurisdiction.Since he uses the plural (officials & chiefs), this must be another statement made, no doubt, based on numerous personal relationships with, and close observation of a number of head law enforcement officers ...

GTSteve03
February 6, 2006, 09:05 PM
No doubt you base this statement on all the conversations you've personally had with chiefs of police, county sheriffs, your city council, county commissioners and all those you personally know who authorize law enforcement procurement and spending, correct?
No doubt everything you ever comment on while at the THR is stuff you've personally verified from 3 independent sources, the media, the government and The Man Upstairs. :rolleyes:

I don't believe I ever claimed to have direct knowledge of police budgetary inner workings, I was merely making a statement based on information I have recieved from LEOs in my immediate family where they are getting rid of outdated M16s procured from the .gov for shiny new G26s. When the pay scale of local LEOs is barely better than living wage for some of the areas around my locale, it makes me wonder why they are choosing to spend the money on shiny new assault rifles rather than on increasing officers' salary. :scrutiny:

Sam
February 6, 2006, 09:08 PM
That is absolutely correct Mr Old Dog. Several of them.

There is no requirement to take the money either by the way.
Just say no when it comes with a string that requires it to be spent on something you do not need.

Next months special funding allocation from the DOJ, slightly used M60 tanks, M113 APCs and A-6s:D .

Sam

Old Dog
February 6, 2006, 09:12 PM
GTSteve03, when you make a statement implying that, nationwide, all law enforcement agencies procure their equipment based on the "big boys toys" syndrome, you should get called on it. "Shiny new guns?" That's simple hogwash.

Maxwell
February 6, 2006, 09:18 PM
Police should comply with ALL gun control law in their particular state.

Im afraid I would have to agree.
I dont think rkba makes a special exception for civilian law enforcement.
You either believe its for the people or its strictly for the military. Civilian law enforcement, private security, and movie set operations dont qualify for any special protection from the law.

If it looks scary, it's has to be bad and they shouldn't be allowed to have it.

It becomes scary because the rest of us don't have it.

The police have not always been a friend of the public, especialy minorities and the poor. If we had many of these recent gun laws in place a few decades ago alot of people would have sufferd a great deal at the hands of rogue cops using their duty weapons for less than dutyful purposes.

If a civilian does not need a grenade launcher or machine gun, why should a civilian wearing the honor-badge of an officer get the same weapon?
He is just as likely to abuse it, its no less dangerous in his hands than mine.
What makes him better than everyone else?

All I ask for is equality. If people are to be armed, let them all be armed.

Dont protect a senator with hand chosen citizens bearing machine guns while he's trying to take the pistol out of my pocket.

pcf
February 6, 2006, 09:51 PM
Steve, keep reading your history Mr Hamer was a big fan of the Browning BAR, he procured more than a few for his men. The Pinkertons detectives did a lot more than bust a few strikes at coal mines keep reading.

Agreed, but only to a certain extent. Not ALL police officers need that kind of training, nor should they. The police are there first and foremost to enforce the peace, and you don't do that by militarizing and turning your own constituents against you with overt shows of unnecessary force.

A lot liberals think that civilians shouldn't receive militarized or tactical firearms training. Just like a liberal to dictate how others should operate as long as it doesn't apply to themselves.

Old Dog, I wasn't very clear about the funding, and you're right, many local governments and DHS earmark funds for a specific purpose, such as, formation of a SWAT team or matters pertaining to homeland security. Throwing money at problems with out finding out what they are or if they even exist.

In the case of the local governments refusing to spend the money in the prescribed manner can result in a lost job. Refusing funds from DHS is usually a one time proposition. Spending either in a manner not prescribed usually results in criminal charges/prison.

Dannyboy
February 6, 2006, 10:24 PM
GTSteve03, when you make a statement implying that, nationwide, all law enforcement agencies procure their equipment based on the "big boys toys" syndrome, you should get called on it. "Shiny new guns?" That's simple hogwash.
Considering a lot of LE agencies get their stuff second-hand from the military, I'd say he has a valid point.

This has been Balko's pet subject for the last month or so. Check out some of the cases he's been researching over at his website. http://www.theagitator.com/index.php

MTMilitiaman
February 6, 2006, 10:41 PM
Here's how I feel.

Police should comply with ALL gun control law in their particular state.

IOW, in CA police weapons should be transported locked in the trunk unloaded and magazines empty. They should apply for CCW licenses and receive them at no more than the average rate for citizens in their locality. If they take the weapons home all safe storage laws apply.

Police pen carry should be legal only where it is permitted for civilians. Police shall disarm prior to entering any "gun free" zone and "safely" store their weapons in their vehicles only if the vehicles are somewhere it is legal or the vehicles must be moved.

CA police should face a felony charge if their evil black rifle was not registered prior to 2001 per CA law. Oh and discharging a weapon from inside a vehicle is a felony.

New issue police handguns will be subject to DROS, NCIC, any other requirements and a 10 business day waiting period, too.

IOW, any restrictions of civilian rights shall be applied equally to all, including JBTs.

Finally, if the police don't like the law, they should vote to change it.

It's for the children and if it just saves one life...

+1

I always find it ironic how many people are willing to support law enforcement possession of such hardware that we are not allowed to have. You guys do realize that a) police are still civilians and should be expected to abide by the same laws they uphold for the rest of us and b) these are the same people who enforce all laws, including the bad ones. Hold a bake sale to provide your local LEOs with M16s but don't forget they are going to use them to keep you from getting your hands on one.

It works both ways. The police should have to abide by the same laws the enforce. They are not immune to the law. Likewise, if they can buy an MP5 or an M4 carbine for $800, I should be able to as well. So sure, give them mini-guns and M203 grenade launchers. But next time I visit my local FFL, I am going to pick up one of each...

beerslurpy
February 6, 2006, 10:44 PM
Here's how I feel.

Police should comply with ALL gun control law in their particular state.

IOW, in CA police weapons should be transported locked in the trunk unloaded and magazines empty. They should apply for CCW licenses and receive them at no more than the average rate for citizens in their locality. If they take the weapons home all safe storage laws apply.

Police pen carry should be legal only where it is permitted for civilians. Police shall disarm prior to entering any "gun free" zone and "safely" store their weapons in their vehicles only if the vehicles are somewhere it is legal or the vehicles must be moved.

CA police should face a felony charge if their evil black rifle was not registered prior to 2001 per CA law. Oh and discharging a weapon from inside a vehicle is a felony.

New issue police handguns will be subject to DROS, NCIC, any other requirements and a 10 business day waiting period, too.

IOW, any restrictions of civilian rights shall be applied equally to all, including JBTs.

Finally, if the police don't like the law, they should vote to change it.

It's for the children and if it just saves one life...

Yes yes yes a thousand times over. The rule of law is meaningless if the government doesnt have to obey.

joab
February 6, 2006, 10:55 PM
Being a cab driver, pizza delivery guy or convenience store worker is much more hazardous than being a cop. Shouldn't they have the same gear and arms?Talk to your union rep or make it a negotiated part of your hire package or buy it yourself. Not that I believe your statistic.
I have never seen anything carried by cops around here that I could not buy my self, with the possible exception of short barreled shotguns

I have a
bullet proof vest ( becuase it was cheap and I was bored)
kevlar helmet
Camos
Assault weapon of choice
Hi-cap shotgun
Don't have a hi-cap pistol, but I could
Back up gun
Even have a scary ninja looking face mask (actually an old army tanker mask)

All I need is a CCW badge and a Crown Vic and I can blend in on one of the raids

GTSteve03
February 6, 2006, 11:07 PM
GTSteve03, when you make a statement implying that, nationwide, all law enforcement agencies procure their equipment based on the "big boys toys" syndrome, you should get called on it. "Shiny new guns?" That's simple hogwash.
I never made such a statement. Please point that out to me. I'm at a loss to figure out what you're "calling me out" on. Do you have the budget numbers for all police forces across the US and how much of it was spent on new weapons?

GTSteve03
February 6, 2006, 11:11 PM
Steve, keep reading your history Mr Hamer was a big fan of the Browning BAR, he procured more than a few for his men. The Pinkertons detectives did a lot more than bust a few strikes at coal mines keep reading.
Was the BAR something that anyone could own back then? If so, that would be a direct opposite situation of today, when most any police agency can buy brand-new fully automatic weapons that the "civilians" aren't allowed to purchase at any cost.

A lot liberals think that civilians shouldn't receive militarized or tactical firearms training. Just like a liberal to dictate how others should operate as long as it doesn't apply to themselves.
Kind of like how "civilians" aren't allowed militarized hardware now? I'm pretty sure there will be a better chance of getting the police force to demilitarize than there ever will of allowing us "lesser people" to own new military hardware. :scrutiny:

Old Dog
February 6, 2006, 11:18 PM
I never made such a statement. Please point that out to me. I'm at a loss to figure out what you're "calling me out" on.
GTSteve03, in Post #15 you said,
I don't see anyone forcing the departments to spend the money on SWAT teams. I think the problem is at least partially the "big boy toys" syndrome with the departments wanting to spend the money on shiny new guns that they can "rock and roll" with.
If that's not a direct implication that law enforcement agencies spend our tax dollars based on "toys" that they want to "rock and roll" with, you probably should provide some documentation reflecting at least one agency's chief and procurement officers actually saying this is why they're buying what they're buying.

Of course, it's obviously quite impossible that any law enforcement agency in existence today employs individuals with integrity who would buy only equipment for their agency that was truly needed.

Hawkmoon
February 6, 2006, 11:24 PM
I don't see anyone forcing the departments to spend the money on SWAT teams. I think the problem is at least partially the "big boy toys" syndrome with the departments wanting to spend the money on shiny new guns that they can "rock and roll" with.
It's more insidious than that.

The federal gummint comes up with ideas. Then they set up programs to fund their ideas through grants. The grants are conditional. If the program gives way money to form SWAT teams, then if you apply and get a grant, the money must be spent on SWAT teams. Sure, nobody forces a department to apply for a grant ... but most bureaucrats find it impossible to resist the urge to apply for "free" money. Thus, even if it's a small, rural department that never had a SWAT team and never needed one, sure as can be somebody in the county government is going to read about the grant program and decide that it would be just a dandy idea to apply for one of those grants.

The next thing you know, Mayberry RFD has a SWAT team.

Kodiaz
February 6, 2006, 11:27 PM
Well I just got a 183 dollar red light ticket. But I won't say anything bad about the Palm Beach County Sheriff's office.


Now those worthless BATFE should execute their blank warrants in briefs so they can't bring the evidence in with them

Sam
February 6, 2006, 11:33 PM
My county has taken a bit different tack on FEDGOV and their cash. They haven't much cared for us since http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/lee_v_us.txt
and it was upheld by the Supremes.

Since that time we have been subjected to a bit of harassment and decided to do without most of the "assistance" of the FEDGOV. Works right well too.
The only assistance we need from them is for them to pay their bills and enforce their own laws(immigration). If they do that a good 65% of our problems will go away without further action.

Got no militarized police hereabouts and don't need any and if the sheriff needs some more firepower, he can get it without the feds.

Sam

BigFatKen
February 6, 2006, 11:35 PM
This isn't the first time a SWAT team in Virginia has killed someone while serving a gambling warrant. In 1998 a team in Virginia Beach conducted a 3 a.m. raid at a private club believed to be involved in organized gambling. Security guard Edward C. Reed was sitting in a parked car outside the club, which had been robbed a few months earlier.

As the black-clad police team raided, a few officers confronted Reed, who had fallen asleep. Reid awoke and, probably startled by the sight of armed men outside his car, reached for his gun. The SWAT team shot and killed him. Reed's last words were, "Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book."
endquote

This type of tactic has always bothered me. How about a bang on the trunk and wait for the man to come out. California cops raided a man's house on a no knock warrant. They wanted to seize his 40 acres that were growing pot. 60ish man had taken prescribed medicine for sleep. In a sleepy stupor, he reached for gun on nightstand and was killed.

Otherguy Overby
February 7, 2006, 02:21 AM
Talk to your union rep or make it a negotiated part of your hire package or buy it yourself. Not that I believe your statistic.

There's a bunch of links (google "most dangerous job") like this:
http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp

Cops don't even make the top 10. And what the "union rep" BS? Most really dangerous jobs aren't union.




I have never seen anything carried by cops around here that I could not buy my self, with the possible exception of short barreled shotguns

Try living in CA, NJ, NY, IL, MA, MD and then see how many of those weapons you can get as a civilian.




I have a
bullet proof vest ( becuase it was cheap and I was bored)
kevlar helmet
Camos
Assault weapon of choice
Hi-cap shotgun
Don't have a hi-cap pistol, but I could
Back up gun
Even have a scary ninja looking face mask (actually an old army tanker mask)



I think you might find that in the really restrictive states, the guns are illegal for civilians and the body armor may be, too. Sheesh there was a thread some time back where a civilian got hassled by some cop for wearing 511s. Only cops can wear 511s...

Alex45ACP
February 7, 2006, 02:33 AM
We can thank the War on (people who use certain types of) Drugs for blurring the line between the police and military... a hallmark of totalitarian dictatorships, by the way.

Prohibition is the #1 threat to our rights at the moment. It is absolutely imperative to the survival of the Republic that it is abolished.

jashobeam
February 7, 2006, 04:33 AM
Old Dog said:

Of course, it's obviously quite impossible that any law enforcement agency in existence today employs individuals with integrity who would buy only equipment for their agency that was truly needed.

Do you not think it quite possible that just maybe SOME departments purchase SOME equipment that they really don't need?

I was going to mention a small police department in the west side of Santa Clara County, CA that has high-tech military gear inlcuding an armored personnel carrier, but since I am unable to produce a receipt or an affidavit from the chief verifying my claim I will decline to discuss it.

Then again, what a PD thinks it NEEDS depends on its self-perception and its view of the community members.

LAK
February 7, 2006, 04:49 AM
I think image is a significant issue; masks and black suits or woodland camo etc in place of a regular police uniform etc.

Masks are definately a problem. Badguys wear masks, and any public servant wearing a mask risks being mistaken for one.

People that live in jurisdictions that forbid them from owning and possessing the type of weapons many police units are using have a legitimate issue if public servants are going to be waving these around anytime they are making an arrest.

But really, having SWAT teams etc involved in arresting people who have committed these "crimes" against themselves - and other minor crimes, and the many non-violent offenses etc is not only ridiculous - it is the sign of a rapidly declining government and state.
---------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Old Dog
February 7, 2006, 01:36 PM
Do you not think it quite possible that just maybe SOME departments purchase SOME equipment that they really don't need? Of course it's possible, and really, I would not deny that it happens; it's simply the implication that agencies all buy equipment based on their need to have the "big boys' toys" is a little over the top, since that is certainly not the case in most agencies.

People that live in jurisdictions that forbid them from owning and possessing the type of weapons many police units are using have a legitimate issue if public servants are going to be waving these around anytime they are making an arrest.Eh, what we're really talking about is the automatic weapons thing. Sure, civilian ownership of MP-5s ... HK-91s ... M-16s, et al, should not be restricted. But, on the other hand, I'm of the inclination that having these in the hands of one's local cops might go a long way to getting the citizenry acclimated to seeing these weapons and understanding that they're just tools, not in and of themselves evil weapons ... and possibly assist the change in atmosphere as far as civilian ownershp of these weapons goes ...

inlcuding an armored personnel carrier, but since I am unable to produce a receipt or an affidavit from the chief verifying my claim I will decline to discuss it. I've no desire to purchase an APC; I don't know that one needs to begrudge even a small department from owning one -- especially if it was military surplus -- but having one would seem a prudent acquisition for a law enforcement agency ...

One thing about the whole militarized SWAT concept ... the very real possibility of domestic terrorism is the new paradigm. Also, criminals these days are quite well armed and very mobile (we've got the gangbangers making road trips from L.A. to Seattle or Las Vegas to rob banks or casinos for example), so one doesn't know where they'll show up.

I certainly don't begrudge my local PD or SO for possessing some of the latest whiz-bang, hooyah gear ... Better they have it, and don't need it, than need it, and don't have it. After all, isn't that the phrase we commonly use on many occasions to justify concealed carry (even if we live in Podunktown, USA, that hasn't seen a violent crime -- other than DV -- for twenty years) and gun ownership?

Now, if I live in a cash-strapped county and the potholes aren't gettin' fixed and I know the county employees haven't had a raise in five years, but the SO goes out and buys (using tax-generated revenue) new equipment to replace existing assets that are still perfectly usable, then yeah, I've got a problem with that.

And I do agree with this one:
Masks are definately a problem. Badguys wear masks, and any public servant wearing a mask risks being mistaken for one.

buzz_knox
February 7, 2006, 01:45 PM
Of course it's possible, and really, I would not deny that it happens; it's simply the implication that agencies all buy equipment based on their need to have the "big boys' toys" is a little over the top, since that is certainly not the case in most agencies.


I've no desire to purchase an APC; I don't know that one needs to begrudge even a small department from owning one -- especially if it was military surplus -- but having one would seem a prudent acquisition for a law enforcement agency ...

I certainly don't begrudge my local PD or SO for possessing some of the latest whiz-bang, hooyah gear ... Better they have it, and don't need it, than need it, and don't have it. After all, isn't that the phrase we commonly use on many occasions to justify concealed carry (even if we live in Podunktown, USA, that hasn't seen a violent crime -- other than DV -- for twenty years) and gun ownership?



Here's the problem with that thinking. Police agencies are gov't agencies, not individuals. If they have a capability and don't use it, the budget cutters will start looking at that as an area that should be eliminated. So, the capability gets used, even if it's not really needed. Plus, the more they expand their capability and demonstrate a need thereof, the bigger the budget. Why do you think ATFE wanted a big televised production at Waco, and the FBI under Louis Freeh started advocating more gun laws, administered at least in part by the FBI? Demonstrate a capability and create a "need," and the budget will flow along with it.

The related problem is that while the agencies aren't individuals, the cops are. The desire to have the gear and to use it is inevitable. So, we end up with SWAT operations that would formerly have been taken care of by a couple of cops knocking on a door, like busting an optometrist.

Eh, what we're really talking about is the automatic weapons thing. Sure, civilian ownership of MP-5s ... HK-91s ... M-16s, et al, should not be restricted. But, on the other hand, I'm of the inclination that having these in the hands of one's local cops might go a long way to getting the citizenry acclimated to seeing these weapons and understanding that they're just tools, not in and of themselves evil weapons ... and possibly assist the change in atmosphere as far as civilian ownershp of these weapons goes ...


Actually, I've heard a lot of cops say civilians shouldn't have those since they don't receive the same training. So, the restriction has worked the exact opposite of what you have suggested.

LawDog
February 7, 2006, 01:54 PM
Here's how I feel.

Police should comply with ALL gun control law in their particular state.

IOW, in CA police weapons should be transported locked in the trunk unloaded and magazines empty. They should apply for CCW licenses and receive them at no more than the average rate for citizens in their locality. If they take the weapons home all safe storage laws apply.

Police pen carry should be legal only where it is permitted for civilians. Police shall disarm prior to entering any "gun free" zone and "safely" store their weapons in their vehicles only if the vehicles are somewhere it is legal or the vehicles must be moved.

CA police should face a felony charge if their evil black rifle was not registered prior to 2001 per CA law. Oh and discharging a weapon from inside a vehicle is a felony.

New issue police handguns will be subject to DROS, NCIC, any other requirements and a 10 business day waiting period, too.

IOW, any restrictions of civilian rights shall be applied equally to all, including JBTs.

Finally, if the police don't like the law, they should vote to change it.

It's for the children and if it just saves one life...

Sounds good to me, as long as the other side of the coin gets enforced also:

Ie: Non-LEO's should be required to certify with their sidearms every six months. Failure to certify means turning in your guns.

Non-LEO's should be restricted to one authorized sidearm only and one authorized back-up gun. Only long guns on a list to be carried at anytime. Carry of any weapons not authorized resulting in turning in your guns.

Non-LEO's should be restricted to one carry load. Carry of ammunition not authorized resulting in turning in your guns.

Non-LEO's should have to fill out a UOF 23 every time they unholster a sidearm. Press hard please, you're making three copies.

Non-LEO's should be made to fill out a TR 5 for each use of issued ammunition, stating where each round was used. Again, three copies, press firmly.

Non-LEO's should be required to undergo a psych eval, 400 hour class, polygraph, and 15 year personal history before being allowed to carry.

We follow y'alls rules, you follow ours: everyone is happy.

LawDog

Otherguy Overby
February 7, 2006, 01:55 PM
Actually, I've heard a lot of cops say civilians shouldn't have those since they don't receive the same training. So, the restriction has worked the exact opposite of what you have suggested.

Kinda like: "I'm the only one here trained..."

When is the CDC going to get involved with the current epidemic of "Glock Leg"?

buzz_knox
February 7, 2006, 02:04 PM
Sounds good to me, as long as the other side of the coin gets enforced also:

We follow y'alls rules, you follow ours: everyone is happy.

LawDog

Sorry, LawDog. The reverse analogy doesn't apply. You see, the 2nd Amendment was about guaranteeing the right of the individual to have access to weapons capable of defending said individual from criminals or tyrannical gov'ts. The restrictions you are discussing are part of the burden placed on state agents who have been authorized to threaten or actually use force against the citizenry. So, the increased restrictions on state agents should apply, even if they only have access to the same weapons "allowed" for the regular populace.

LawDog
February 7, 2006, 02:09 PM
I don't know, I could probably hook up the 400 hour class as being required for a "well-regulated militia".

Authorized weapons might fly under the "well-regulated militia" part, too, if you want to get into the hypothetical side of things.

LawDog

buzz_knox
February 7, 2006, 02:18 PM
Why go hypothetical? What you just suggested is the basis of the arguments in favor of the collective rights theory of the 2nd Amendment.

If we argue for an individual right theory, then we have to reject the qualifications you're placing on there, recognizing that the well-regulated militia phrase was subordinate to that guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

Otherguy Overby
February 7, 2006, 02:22 PM
Sounds good to me, as long as the other side of the coin gets enforced also:

Ie: Non-LEO's should be required to certify with their sidearms every six months. Failure to certify means turning in your guns.

Uh just where did that pesky "right to bear arms" disappear too?

Actually I agree about training. However, it should only be an administrative penalty for carrying w/o training, no license required. IOW, say a $50 fine for carrying with out training. No gun confiscated, just do it like an expired vehicle registration. Let the citizen go on his way with his gun.



Non-LEO's should be restricted to one authorized sidearm only and one authorized back-up gun. Only long guns on a list to be carried at anytime. Carry of any weapons not authorized resulting in turning in your guns.

Non-LEO's should be restricted to one carry load. Carry of ammunition not authorized resulting in turning in your guns.

Non-LEO's should have to fill out a UOF 23 every time they unholster a sidearm. Press hard please, you're making three copies.

Non-LEO's should be made to fill out a TR 5 for each use of issued ammunition, stating where each round was used. Again, three copies, press firmly.


Just in your jurisdiction... :evil:



Non-LEO's should be required to undergo a psych eval, 400 hour class, polygraph, and 15 year personal history before being allowed to carry.


Lessee... 18+15=35 or 18+21=36. Just how do they qualify all those young cops? :)

Regardless, the real argument is should rights trump rules? Most especially mal prohibitum rules...



We follow y'alls rules, you follow ours: everyone is happy.

LawDog

Cool, just so long as I can carry a 1911 of my choosing anywhere I want. If you say Glock, I say foul. As far as forms go, I can print up loads of them from the computer.

Finally, where is your next story?

LawDog
February 7, 2006, 03:11 PM
Why go hypothetical? What you just suggested is the basis of the arguments in favor of the collective rights theory of the 2nd Amendment.

If we argue for an individual right theory, then we have to reject the qualifications you're placing on there, recognizing that the well-regulated militia phrase was subordinate to that guaranteeing the right to bear arms.

Subordinate or not, It's still there.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. Along with that right, we have the responsibility, the obligation, and the duty to be "well-regulated", that is (as intended by the men who wrote the Constitution) "well-trained".

Now, I don't know about y'all, but I don't see the average 17-45 year-old American male as being trained worth a diddly, we won't even get to "well-trained".

Since the current American mindset is all for rights while ignoring the obligations inherent in any rights, I don't see a collectivist mindset in telling every American between the ages of 17 and 45 to get their butts to an NRA course at the very least.

I would prefer that every American male be required to take Basic and Advanced Infantry training (No military service, just graduate from the Infantry school and go about your merry way) right after high school, but I can compromise.

LawDog

molonlabe
February 7, 2006, 03:30 PM
I would prefer that every American male be required to take Basic and Advanced Infantry training (No military service, just graduate from the Infantry school and go about your merry way) right after high school, but I can compromise.

Me too but this doesnt solved the problem of the militarization of our police force.

LawDog
February 7, 2006, 03:48 PM
Anybody who thinks that today's police are overly-militarized has not studied the history of law enforcement in the United States.

LawDog

Powderman
February 7, 2006, 03:55 PM
Policing in America first resembled the type of policing practiced by "Peelers", the officers of Sir Robert Peel, also known as "bobbies". Law enforcement officers practiced a watchman-style of policing.

There was an innate sense of respect for the police officer of that time, who was unarmed and apprehended criminals mostly by their immediate compliance.

Times changed.

Newer breeds of criminals arose, those who had no problems arming themselves and attacking even law enforcement officers if they were discovered during their illegal enterprise. In response, law enforcement officers were also armed.

Until the later part of the 1970's and 80's, police officers were armed with only revolvers--and those were .38 Special Model 10's, thank you very much. Older administrators saw no need to equip police officers any further.

Incidents like the Newhall massacre--where four police officers were killed in the face of superior firepower from the bad guys--made police administration realize that the tables had turned.

Moreover, during the turbulent 70's, a new problem emerged. Police officers were actually hunted by the bad guys. More and more often, plans for a stickup included laying an ambush for the responding cops.

There used to be two categories of "protected" citizens--kids and cops. Touch a kid, and your days were numbered--if not by the citizenry, then by your own kind when you went to the big house.

Kill a cop, and the conventional wisdom was that you would not see the inside of a station house. You'd be dead before you got there.

Look at what happens now.

In the ever changing face of crime, and the increased use of firepower by the bad guys, police officers started gearing up and ramping up their tactics. This was done to ensure the survivability of the officers, as well as giving them the tools they needed to apprehend violent criminals.

The face of law enforcement took on a more aggresive posture, and we started actively going after the bad guys.

So, here it is in a nutshell. Read this, study this and remember it well.

The reason that we, as law enforcement officers are suited up; carry military type firearms and equipment and practice military tactics is simply this:

IT SAVES LIVES.

How so? Consider the bad guy, entrenched in his home. He looks up and sees Officer Friendly knocking on his door. "Now, fella, open up. I have to take you in, you have warrants."

Oh, he'll open up all right--with whatever firearm he has at hand.

Now, think of the same bad guy. He looks up and sees about 8 jumpsuited officers entering the yard, four to the front and four to the rear. They're moving with a purpose, clad in Nomex. He sees the MP5's and the shotguns. He glances across the street and catches a movement in the shadows--it's the precision rifle and spotter, and he's being boresighted by an accurized .308 rifle.

Before the door is even kicked in, he's proned out. Lives are saved today, and no bullets were flying in the neighborhood.

Properly executed tactics and dynamic entries save FAR more lives than they take. They are done to make the BG think twice before the trigger is pulled.

And if they choose the trigger, then the high-quality precision arms used by the SRT ensure that the bullets flying around will be kept to an absolute minimum.

So, to all who continually second guess us, here's an offer:

I'll let you perform warrant service on a crack house. You go in by yourself, armed with a .38 revolver and two reloads. Go in in a police Class B uniform.

Have fun, now!

molonlabe
February 7, 2006, 05:21 PM
Anybody who thinks that today's police are overly-militarized has not studied the history of law enforcement in the United States.


Care to elaborate because I think we have been here before on a previous thread.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=121532&highlight=Militarization

I think we the people are becoming more and more uncomfortable with these actions. Yes I have studied the history and I don't like the current trend. I don't believe I'm alone here. Heres another
http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/law/oldspeak-cops.asp

You know call me a cop basher or whatever you like. I am a tax payer, a professional, a volunteer for my community. I dont consider myself paranoid but these action have been ramping and I am concerned and want limits on the police.

Nightcrawler
February 7, 2006, 05:43 PM
I read the second article posted above. Sounds like something the Qatari police/military special forces would do.

That's not the sort of thing we need to be emulating in America.

LawDog
February 7, 2006, 06:55 PM
...military experience played an important role in the original organization of State Police forces. Pennsylvania relied heavily on the field concepts utilized historically by the military. The combination of military organization concepts, military men as the first enlistees, military organizational structure and military personnel discipline marked the development of the State Police forces in the United States.
-- My notes from lecture during Law Enforcement Academy

May 2, 1905. The Pennsylvania State Police are created. One of the first State Police agency in the nation, the PSP are cited as a model for other state law enforcement agencies.

The PSP troopers sign on for 2 year enlistments, are required to live in barracks with mess halls. Each trooper starts with the rank of private, and the majority of the first enlistees have prior military experience.

Military reservations are used for the initial training, in which the troopers lived in Army tents and trained using Army equipment, and troopers maintain military discipline and wear US Army based uniforms.

State police agenices aren't becoming militarized, they've been para-military from the absolute beginning -- that being the Year of Our Lord 1905.

However, if you really want a look at militarized law enforcement let us set the Wayback Machine to 1823.

"ten men...to act as rangers for the common defense...The wages I will give said ten men is fifteen dollars a month payable in property."
--Stephen F. Austin

The Texas Rangers. Military, or law enforcement?

Whole lotta dead Comanches and Mexicans might take exception to thinking of the Rangers as Law Enforcement. Matter-of-fact, the high-points of War Against the Comanche tends to make the excesses of the War on Drugs look like Amateur Hour.

Rangers did their bit on the military side in m ore than one invasion of Mexico, and they were assigned to the Confederate Army during the Late Unpleasantness.

"This branch of the service [Rangers]has been very active and has done incalculable good in policing the sparsely settled sections of the state where the local officers...could not afford adequate protection."
--Adjutant General W.H. Mabry 1896

Sounds like a police force to me.

" I instruct you [Ranger Capt. John R. Hughes]and your men to keep them (Mexican raiders) off of Texas territory if possible, and if they invade the State let them understand they do so at the risk of their lives."
--Texas. Gov. O.B. Colquitt, 1917

Oops, now that sounds more military.

*shrug*

Like I said, anyone who thinks militarization of law enforcement is new, hasn't been reading up on American Law Enforcement history.

Or law enforcement history at all, for that matter.

LawDog

Chris Rhines
February 7, 2006, 07:01 PM
State police agenices aren't becoming militarized, they've been para-military from the absolute beginning -- that being the Year of Our Lord 1905. All the more reason that they shouldn't exist in present form.

- Chris

mwelch8404
February 7, 2006, 07:03 PM
As a matter of curiosity, how many of these "over swatted" departments come from either larger communities or areas with lots of transient or illegal immigrant problems?


In my OPINION, I think the use of the types of weapons and force increases with the officer's separation (distance) from the community they police.

I think a mask would be useless around here - there are only 20 officers (including fish cops)in the whole county...

People know all (with FEW exception) our LEO's. Since coverage can be sparse, they often have their vehicles parked on the street or in their driveway.

molonlabe
February 7, 2006, 07:09 PM
The Founders could not have envisioned 'police' officers as we know them today. The term "police" had a slightly different meaning at the time of the Founding. It was generally used as a verb and meant to watch over or monitor the public health and safety. In Louisiana, "police juries" were local governing bodies similar to county boards in other states. Only in the mid-nineteenth century did the term 'police' begin to take on the persona of a uniformed state law enforcer. The term first crept into Supreme Court jurisprudence even later.

Prior to the 1850s, rugged individualism and self-reliance were the touchstones of American law, culture, and industry. Although a puritan cultural and legal ethic pervaded their society, Americans had great toleration for victimless misconduct. Traffic disputes were resolved through personal negotiation and common law tort principles, rather than driver licenses and armed police patrol. Agents of the state did not exist for the protection of the individual citizen. The night watch of early American cities concerned itself primarily with the danger of fire, and watchmen were often afraid to enter some of the most notorious neighborhoods of cities like Boston.
The paper and reference can be read here from the Seton Hall law Journal.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htmHard to beleive this came from New Jersey.

But the real point of this discussion is.

The bloodstained record of shootings, beatings, tortures and mayhem by American police against the populace is too voluminous to be recounted in a single article. At least 2,000 Americans have been killed at the hands of law enforcement since 1990 (and this document has been around for a while). Some one-fourth of these killings — about fifty per year — are alleged by some authorities to be in the nature of murders. Yet only a handful have led to indictment, conviction and incarceration. This is true even though most police killings involve victims who were unarmed or committed no crime.

Powderman
February 7, 2006, 07:12 PM
All the more reason that they shouldn't exist in present form.

- Chris

OK, then. I invite you to set the example of how things should be.

Please publish a signed document, submitted to your city hall/county seat/state government.

In this document, please articulate the following:

1. Your concern for the militarization of the police agencies of your jurisdiction.

2. The need for less government, not more.

3. The immediate removal of ALL responsibility of local and State law enforcement, fire/public safety departments and EMT/Paramedic crews for any type of emergent response to your address. In short, give up the possibility of calling the police for any reason; no fire crews to save your property, no EMT's to respond for medical emergencies.

You want these agencies to be LESS, not MORE? OK. Fine by me.

hammer4nc
February 7, 2006, 07:17 PM
Powderman, deal.

I'd sign that document in a ny minute, along with a corresponding reduction in the tax burden for unused services. I bet I wouldn't be alone, either.

M-Rex
February 7, 2006, 07:20 PM
Powderman, deal.

I'd sign that document in a ny minute, along with a corresponding reduction in the tax burden for unused services. I bet I wouldn't be alone, either.

Vive' Anarchy! The Libertarian Paradise! :neener:

The Real Hawkeye
February 7, 2006, 07:29 PM
Vive' Anarchy! The Libertarian Paradise! :neener:Why do you assume that the absence of army of armed uniformed government enforcers among us would result in anarchy? Government which is by the consent of the governed does not require an army of government agents to impose it on the people.

The Real Hawkeye
February 7, 2006, 07:41 PM
Here's how I feel.

Police should comply with ALL gun control law in their particular state.

IOW, in CA police weapons should be transported locked in the trunk unloaded and magazines empty. They should apply for CCW licenses and receive them at no more than the average rate for citizens in their locality. If they take the weapons home all safe storage laws apply.

Police pen carry should be legal only where it is permitted for civilians. Police shall disarm prior to entering any "gun free" zone and "safely" store their weapons in their vehicles only if the vehicles are somewhere it is legal or the vehicles must be moved.

CA police should face a felony charge if their evil black rifle was not registered prior to 2001 per CA law. Oh and discharging a weapon from inside a vehicle is a felony.

New issue police handguns will be subject to DROS, NCIC, any other requirements and a 10 business day waiting period, too.

IOW, any restrictions of civilian rights shall be applied equally to all, including JBTs.

Finally, if the police don't like the law, they should vote to change it.

It's for the children and if it just saves one life...+1

The Real Hawkeye
February 7, 2006, 07:46 PM
I spent more than 10 years overseas in the military. Most police officers there carry submachine guns and no one was concerned about it. Its a matter of perspective, I guess. As far as SWAT overseas, there are anti-terrorist police as well as military police, such as the Italian Carbineris and Turkish Jannasaries.
Probably a few horror stories out there but I saw respect on both sides and no problems.
North'wet"Yes, those are called the trappings of a police state. That has always been one of the things people proudly pointed to about the United States, i.e., our cops didn't walk around with a sub gun slung over their shoulder.

Maxwell
February 7, 2006, 08:05 PM
You want these agencies to be LESS, not MORE? OK. Fine by me.

Show me a politician who proposes to take away basic services and Ill show you a man who will be unemployed soon.

Im sure the cops job would be easier by limiting weapons. It would also be easier without free speach and alot of other constitutional rights. Police in communist states have the most cush jobs of all, with how they can drag a suspect into the street and exicute them...

...That dosnt mean people would want to live this way just for the convienience of the policeman. The persuit of justice should not thread over our constitutional rights, no matter how nobel the case sounds.

Police have been a tool of tyranny before, and have also been known to abuse their power. Theres good reason to fear giving law enforcement an exclusive selection of weapons and gear.

I respect the fact that its not an easy job but thats why we pay for the good equipement and extensive training.
This situation is one civilian buying another civilian some additional tools for their job. No one involved with that is exempt from the laws of the state.

If your willing to blatently ignore the rules youve just sworn to uphold, shouldnt the rest of us be worried?

TequilaMockingbird
February 7, 2006, 08:11 PM
As far as SWAT overseas, there are anti-terrorist police as well as military police, such as the Italian Carbineris and Turkish Jannasaries.

Both are examples of the merging of police and military which is anathema to the American tradition.

When we drive down the highway and see a police car swing in behind us, we immediately check our speed, etc.

When we see a truck full of soldiers pull in behind in behind us, we do not for an instant experience even one iota of nervousness. We don't worry about getting pulled over, questioned, searched, arrested, etc.

Unfortunately, the trend in the US for the police to look and act more like soldiers, and to assign ever greater law enforcement functions to military and intelligence agencies. Hell, Bush even wants to give subpoena power (http://www.sptimes.com/2003/05/11/Columns/Radical_spy_plan_near.shtml)to the CIA and the military.

The Real Hawkeye
February 7, 2006, 08:19 PM
Subordinate or not, It's still there.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. Along with that right, we have the responsibility, the obligation, and the duty to be "well-regulated."Not at all. The Second Amendment makes no law regarding a militia. It only makes a law prohibiting the infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms. At best, the first part about the militia is a subtext explaining why the right to keep and bear arm must not be infringed. Notice also that it does not presume to establish a right to keep and bear arms. That too is a mere reference, and establishes no law, since it assumes, by its sentence structure, that the right preexists the Constitution. Again, the only law established by the Second Amendment is one which prohibits government action which tends to have the effect of infringing on the people's preexisting right to keep and bear arms. There is no militia law in the Second Amendment.

Powderman
February 7, 2006, 08:47 PM
Bash, bash; bash bash bash.

Everytime someone mentions the police, it's bash, bash, bash.

We are ALWAYS the bad guys, the jack booted thugs, the monsters who would infringe on YOUR civil rights.

You don't see any need for US to be prepared to handle people who assault us--sometimes simply because we wear a cop's uniform.

You don't see any reason for us to be as well armed as some of the hardened criminals we encounter.

You gripe about the weapons we use and the clothes we wear.

But some of you won't vote, and get on some philosophical bandwagon, saying that you're voting with your absence.

Some of you vote for third party candidates who don't have a snowball's chance of winning, saying that you're letting yourself be heard, when the only thing that IS heard is the opposing party's candidate, laughing hysterically as their left-wing communistic friends vote them into power.

You say that you will "fight to the end!!" and "from my cold dead fingers!!"

Yet, some of you think that any method to effect PEACEFUL change--such as the use of the petition, referendum and the recall--is useless.

Some of you are saying, "Hey!! Do away with the police!!

Let a kid go missing, and there's an Amber Alert called. Who do you think gets the word out, literally WITHIN SECONDS, nationwide?

Who do you think stays out on the streets and arterials, the highways and freeways, looking for the license numbers and the missing kids?

If you see a car down an embankment in a water filled ditch, while some of you are trying to sort out what to do, guess who's dropping their equipment belt and jumping in?

And, if some maniac starts popping off rounds, while some of you are running AWAY, herding your families out of harm's way, who do you think is running TOWARD the sound of the guns, putting their concerns for THEIR families to the side?

Why, it's me, my bros and sisters. John and Jill Law. The Po-Po. Five-O. The fuzz. Mr. Flatfoot himself.

Some of you have even said you would KILL law enforcement officers in the past. I don't think I've seen that from the posters in THIS thread, but it has been said.

Could someone tell me, truthfully--why you guys hate cops, so much?

M-Rex
February 7, 2006, 08:54 PM
Why do you assume that the absence of army of armed uniformed government enforcers among us would result in anarchy? Government which is by the consent of the governed does not require an army of government agents to impose it on the people.

Why do you assume it won't?

Two words: Rodney King

M-Rex
February 7, 2006, 09:00 PM
Bash, bash; bash bash bash.

Everytime someone mentions the police, it's bash, bash, bash.

We are ALWAYS the bad guys, the jack booted thugs, the monsters who would infringe on YOUR civil rights.

You don't see any need for US to be prepared to handle people who assault us--sometimes simply because we wear a cop's uniform.

You don't see any reason for us to be as well armed as some of the hardened criminals we encounter.

You gripe about the weapons we use and the clothes we wear.

But some of you won't vote, and get on some philosophical bandwagon, saying that you're voting with your absence.

Some of you vote for third party candidates who don't have a snowball's chance of winning, saying that you're letting yourself be heard, when the only thing that IS heard is the opposing party's candidate, laughing hysterically as their left-wing communistic friends vote them into power.

You say that you will "fight to the end!!" and "from my cold dead fingers!!"

Yet, some of you think that any method to effect PEACEFUL change--such as the use of the petition, referendum and the recall--is useless.

Some of you are saying, "Hey!! Do away with the police!!

Let a kid go missing, and there's an Amber Alert called. Who do you think gets the word out, literally WITHIN SECONDS, nationwide?

Who do you think stays out on the streets and arterials, the highways and freeways, looking for the license numbers and the missing kids?

If you see a car down an embankment in a water filled ditch, while some of you are trying to sort out what to do, guess who's dropping their equipment belt and jumping in?

And, if some maniac starts popping off rounds, while some of you are running AWAY, herding your families out of harm's way, who do you think is running TOWARD the sound of the guns, putting their concerns for THEIR families to the side?

Why, it's me, my bros and sisters. John and Jill Law. The Po-Po. Five-O. The fuzz. Mr. Flatfoot himself.

Some of you have even said you would KILL law enforcement officers in the past. I don't think I've seen that from the posters in THIS thread, but it has been said.

Could someone tell me, truthfully--why you guys hate cops, so much?


You know...I wonder....

...there are all sorts of posts on this website about law enforcement officers being killed in the line of duty. I wonder if folks like Molon Labe, Real Hawkeye, Otherguy Overby, SomeKid, and others actually celebrate a little when a cop goes down? You think that maybe, they are actually laughing at the officer's surviving loved ones and thinking, "serve's 'em right for trampling my rights"?

Maybe they hold up a drink and say a 'thank you' that another 'JBT' has bitten the dust.

Nightcrawler
February 7, 2006, 09:07 PM
Lawdog is correct. None of these things are especially new. Often we see things happening and act like it's the first time ever. Sometimes, it seems like a lot of people on the board have a vision of their heads of a set of idealized halycon days of American History, when cops were respectful and respected, crime was low, drugs weren't a problem, and Men were Truly Free.

In fact, all of the problems we discuss on this board have happened before. America has never been perfect, and never will be. Anyone who thinks new laws infringing on rights are somehow unprecedented need only look back at state and local codes from earlier eras.

The difference was laws weren't uniformally enforced in the Olden Days, and now they more often are, no matter how obscure or silly.

Some people say that this requires a disbanding of police forces. I don't think so, personally. Nor do I think that police officers should have to go around in dress uniforms, ties, shiny shoes, and .38s in polished flap holsters.

However, hundreds of police sealing off an entire block on a misguided attempt at a drug bust is excess. Using a SWAT team and a dynamic entry to arrest a middle aged woman accused of embezzling is excess. Being pulled over for speeding and having to look down the barrels of half a dozen AR-15s is excess.

Fortuantely, there IS middle ground. We can give police officers the tools and equipment they need to do their jobs, and the training to go along with it. This doesn't have to result in the officers playing Rainbow Six every time they pull somebody over.

What the situation requires is moderation, common sense, and equal concern for safety and the rights of the officers and citizens in question. This is where leadership and administration comes in.

We can't ask police to do a dirty, thankless, low paying job with inadequate equipment and substandard training exacerbating the situation. On the other hand, we can't throw out people's rights in the name of officer safety, or even the safety of the public at large. Just like it's wrong to shred the Constitution to streamline the combatting of terrorism. It's not worth the price.

What Lawdog said about responsibility is also true. On the same token, that responsibility also applies to those in charge of law enforcement agenecies to use these tools and tactics appropriately. If a middle aged woman, accused of embezzling or some other non-violent offense, needs to be served an arrest warrant, send two officers to her door, knock on it, and inform her she's under arrest. Is there a chance she'll start shooting? Yes. Would then a dynamic entry be safer for the officers? Probably. But does that mean that that's how it should be done? American law enforcement can't just be about the men in black kicking down your door.

On the other hand, if you have a suspect on the run, that's been shooting at the cops at every opportunity holed up in a building somewhere, possibly with hostages...then no, you don't send the two beat cops to knock on the door. That's a proper situation for SWAT-style tatics.

It doesn't have to be Barney Fife vs. The Ninja-Suited SWAT-men. Departments can scale their use of force to the situation. Correct?

Coronach
February 7, 2006, 09:22 PM
Correct. The problem is that if you have the freedom of chosing the force you use (as they should have), you also open up the possibility of using the wrong amount of force. Too much force, you look like thugs. Too little, and you run the risk of things going violent. The thing that we SHOULD be saying is that the cops should endeavor to tailor their reposnse to the threat at hand. Some of us ARE saying that. The more excitable posters seem to be wishing that LE not even have the option.

Mike

Old Dog
February 7, 2006, 09:27 PM
One thing I find of interest ... look over at General Gun Discussion, this thread in particular ("The FBI knocked on my door yesterday"):
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=180816
Here you see a number of THR members who indicate that they categorically refuse to even communicate with any law enforcement officers under any circumstances. Given this attitude, increasingly prevalent in almost every jurisdication these days, it's no wonder that cops grow weary of trying to gain cooperation from citizens to actually prevent or solve crime.

We've come to a sorry pass, folks. And frankly, I don't think you can lay the entire blame at the feet of law enforcement for this, either ...

Nightcrawler
February 7, 2006, 09:38 PM
It's a vicious circle. The less police are trusted, the harder it is to do their jobs, and the more frustrated they get. When one officer out of hundreds takes out his frustration in an inappropriate way, the word spreads like wildfire, the people become less trustful of the police still, and on and on.

That's why my radical "common sense" idea is important. If police resort to dynamic raids, kicking down doors, and intimidation of the public, their jobs will become a thousand times harder. How many crimes would go unsolved if no witnesses came forward, no one saw anything, and no one was willing to talk? How can they be civil servants if the citizenry mistrusts them?

On the other hand, if all the officer on the beat gets to deal with is hostility and mistrust from the public, it's going to do nothing but further polarize the situation and reinforce the "us vs. them" mentality. If he has to do his job with inappropriate tools or inadequate training because some PC lawyer said that such-and-such gear would scare somebody, he's going to be the one becoming resentful and mistrustful.

Unfortuantely, other than a plea for sanity to those in charge of making these decisions, I don't have any solutions to offer. And three years of college was enough to show me that one person's idea of sanity is absolutely perposterous to another person...

Sam
February 7, 2006, 10:19 PM
Way too much institutional paranoia involved in the discussion. The same paranoia that causes the police community to become involved in the ill advised actions that cause John Q. Public to be highly suspicious of police activities. Notice I said highly suspicious not hate or dislike. Suspicion is nothing but faltering trust.

It is not the place of the citizen to make the police trust him. It is the place of the police as the pubilc servant to do things to make his master want to trust him.
It isn't happening.

Sam

Meplat
February 7, 2006, 10:25 PM
Particularly agravating is thier insistance on refering to the citizenry as "civillians":
New Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
1. One who is skilled in civil or Roman law.
2. Any person not in military or naval service

Time to get off the high horse boys

Sam

Ya know, I can vividly remember, although it's been many years ago, sitting in a steak and egg breakfast place in a booth next to two tables of off duty police officers. They and I were the only people in the place, and I guess with my disheveled appearance, they felt like they could say whatever they wanted.

Of course, they had no way on knowing that I had been across the street in the hospital ICU waiting room for four straight days and nights, hoping that my Mom was not going to die from the injuries she recieved at the hands of a drunk driver. Nor that I would wait another ten days to know that. Only that I was unshaven, ragged, and more than a bit the worse for wear.

The stuff I heard made the already ashy tasting food (something about having one's mother in that shape makes ALL food taste ashy) all but impossible to swallow. Here were some of our city's "finest" talking about the "civilians" (like THEY were military) and the many ways of being able to legally misuse or abuse them, or to even find justification for shootings that might be borderline. Macho posturing bulldookie. Except for the fact that two of the congregation were female. One of the lady officers then began to expound on what the best and most efficient way to hurt anyone based on her martial arts training and the time she had spent in Japan learning these techniques and all about how "no one wanted to give her an excuse".

I left the place even more sickened than when I arrived, tip on table and food untouched. Mom DID eventially recover, though with crippling injuries that haunt her to this day. I never did find out if of any of the police officers ever got the chance to collect their "tags" on any bad guys. The Bruce Lee lady officer? She escalated a situation with a very drunken very large, very mean man a few months later, and decided to teach him a "lesson". Instead of calling for backup, she forced her way into his living room, where he proceeded to disarm her and shoot her just under the ear with her own service revolver.

I have to wonder...if this particular officer had not been so caught up in the militaristic, macho "us" against "them" mentality, and had she not been constantly under bombardment to be the "tough guy"...if she had followed proper proceedure...would she be alive and the would the guy only have a drunk and disorderly charge instead of a murder charge on him?

NOT an indictment of all LEO's, by any means. I know some darn fine ones. Unfortunately, most of these are old timers. The new training either teaches it's "us against them", or the attitude is instilled from elsewhere. I do know how prevelant it is. I live in a tiny town adjacent to a small city. The small city's Chief of Police demands his officers show respect yet command authority. They do a wonderful job of this. The people in this city go out of their way to speak to the officers, and are proud to know them. The tiny town I live in, however, is filled with officers who won't even acknowledge so much as a "good day officer" from a "regular citizen". Also know some who won't associate with anyone not "on the job", and look at all of us as "the enemy", while not understanding why they don't get the respect they "deserve".

One does NOT have to sacrifice nor abandon simple civility in order to maintain authority. Sadly, too many LEO's seem to have never learned that respect is something to be earned. Not confined to LEO's, by any means, but I see more and more of this attitude.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real Hawkeye
Why do you assume that the absence of army of armed uniformed government enforcers among us would result in anarchy? Government which is by the consent of the governed does not require an army of government agents to impose it on the people.

Why do you assume it won't?

Two words: Rodney King

Rodney King? I seem to remember that the police brought that one about. Heck, that almost makes a better case against you than for you. :neener:

Couldn't resist.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 01:29 AM
On to the topic at hand:


Yes, police officers should most certainly have access to the tools they deem necessary. IGive the police M-16's, .50 cals, Mp5's...now let's all work towards getting those same items for us non-leo citizens as well.

What should not be occuring, is hot weapons being pointed at persons that do not show a credible threat. They can have the tools they feel are necessary to do their job IMHO, I am more concerned with how they use or misuse them. Nothing wrong with having a lot of back-up armed to the teeth, there is no excuse for an accidental shooting because a SWAT ninja has a gun pointed at a non-violent person cooperating with the police and his finger hit the trigger.

Keep the guns at low ready or raised but pointed slight off-target and your finger off the trigger. Respond in force all you want, 10-15 officers per suspect if you feel like it, but don't turn an arrest into a kill zone because you wanted to cut a corner and endanger a citizen with the right not to be negligently executed by a person with a badge just to save a few hundredths of a seconds on getting on target when there is no reason to believe a credible threat exists.

Robert Hairless
February 8, 2006, 02:11 AM
Bash, bash; bash bash bash.

Everytime someone mentions the police, it's bash, bash, bash.

We are ALWAYS the bad guys, the jack booted thugs, the monsters who would infringe on YOUR civil rights. ...

Why, it's me, my bros and sisters. John and Jill Law. The Po-Po. Five-O. The fuzz. Mr. Flatfoot himself. ...

Could someone tell me, truthfully--why you guys hate cops, so much?


Truthfully? Perhaps you would do yourself and other law enforcement officers a favor if you changed your own attitudes to remove some of that self-pitying, arrogant hostility. After reading your message and those of some other law enforcement officers here I was troubled by such attitudes. They're insular and inward dwelling and they might be at least partly responsible for creating increasing fear and mistrust. My own life experiences have shown that people do tend to resent those they perceive as maltreating them or indifferent to them or removed from them as a breed apart.

The Washington Post article that stimulated this thread called attention to people killed unnecessarily by SWAT teams and questioned the appropriateness of that kind of police work. Your response is to ask "Could someone tell me, truthfully--why you guys hate cops, so much?" You might be able to get the answer to that question by reading the article and then reading your own response.

Since you're concerned with hostile stereotyping of the police you might also want to reconsider the wisdom of listing your occupation this way in your Profile:

Occupation:
LEO--also known as John Law, 5-0, the po-po!

Think about what you're doing in the context of this explanation by a social psychologist (http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p324bs3.shtml): "It is common to hear gang members refer to police as 'pigs', 'po-pos', or '5-os.' By doing this, gang members are lumping police into a category and robbing them of any individuality. Gang members feel that all cops have the same characteristics, opinions, and behaviors. One stereotype that gang members have of police is that they are all out to get them. More specifically, gang members feel that police even go to the extreme as to promote gang wars between different gangs." Why assume those atttitudes?

Speaking for myself I don't "hate" cops and I most certainly don't "hate" you. Your attitudes, though, might well be causing increasing fear and mistrust among many people. That's unfortunate--for us all. Rejoin the rest of us, do your work professionally and prudently but without the air of martrydom or superiority, and recognize that many of us serve our fellow man without such resentments. Life isn't always easy but there's no reason to make it harder or to find yourself a place elsewhere.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 02:18 AM
Truthfully? Perhaps you would do yourself and other law enforcement officers a favor if you changed your own attitudes to remove some of that self-pitying, arrogant hostility. After reading your message and those of some other law enforcement officers here I was troubled by such attitudes. They're insular and inward dwelling and they might be at least partly responsible for creating increasing fear and mistrust. My own life experiences have shown that people do tend to resent those they perceive as maltreating them or indifferent to them or removed from them as a breed apart.

The Washington Post article that stimulated this thread called attention to people killed unnecessarily by SWAT teams and questioned the appropriateness of that kind of police work. Your response is to ask "Could someone tell me, truthfully--why you guys hate cops, so much?" You might be able to get the answer to that question by reading the article and then reading your own response.

Since you're concerned with hostile stereotyping of the police you might also want to reconsider the wisdom of listing your occupation this way in your Profile:



Think about what you're doing in the context of this explanation by a social psychologist (http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p324bs3.shtml): "It is common to hear gang members refer to police as 'pigs', 'po-pos', or '5-os.' By doing this, gang members are lumping police into a category and robbing them of any individuality. Gang members feel that all cops have the same characteristics, opinions, and behaviors. One stereotype that gang members have of police is that they are all out to get them. More specifically, gang members feel that police even go to the extreme as to promote gang wars between different gangs." Why assume those atttitudes?

Speaking for myself I don't "hate" cops and I most certainly don't "hate" you. Your attitudes, though, might well be causing increasing fear and mistrust among many people. That's unfortunate--for us all. Rejoin the rest of us, do your work professionally and prudently but without the air of martrydom or superiority, and recognize that many of us serve our fellow man without such resentments. Life isn't always easy but there's no reason to make it harder or to find yourself a place elsewhere.


Can I get an Amen? :D

We really need to find ways to diminish the divide, not increase the gap. Neither side of the bias coin is helping, but Robert Hairless' post articulates a large part of the issue and does it very well.

LAK
February 8, 2006, 03:07 AM
Eh, what we're really talking about is the automatic weapons thing. Sure, civilian ownership of MP-5s ... HK-91s ... M-16s, et al, should not be restricted. But, on the other hand, I'm of the inclination that having these in the hands of one's local cops might go a long way to getting the citizenry acclimated to seeing these weapons and understanding that they're just tools, not in and of themselves evil weapons ... and possibly assist the change in atmosphere as far as civilian ownershp of these weapons goes ...
Unfortunately the trend is the opposite. I could not begin to even guess the number of times I have seen in print or heard people, organizational spokesmen, elected and appointed officials etc making statements to the effect of, "these weapons are suitable for or only belong in the hands of soldiers and police" etc.
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
February 8, 2006, 03:16 AM
Why go hypothetical? What you just suggested is the basis of the arguments in favor of the collective rights theory of the 2nd Amendment.

If we argue for an individual right theory, then we have to reject the qualifications you're placing on there, recognizing that the well-regulated militia phrase was subordinate to that guaranteeing the right to bear arms.
It is remarkable that, at least to my knowledge, up until legislation mainly beginning into the 20th century, no formal training or otherwise was ever a prerequisite in any State to exercize the right to keep and bear arms.

-------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedtstates.org

LAK
February 8, 2006, 03:29 AM
Subordinate or not, It's still there.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. Along with that right, we have the responsibility, the obligation, and the duty to be "well-regulated", that is (as intended by the men who wrote the Constitution) "well-trained".

Now, I don't know about y'all, but I don't see the average 17-45 year-old American male as being trained worth a diddly, we won't even get to "well-trained".

Since the current American mindset is all for rights while ignoring the obligations inherent in any rights, I don't see a collectivist mindset in telling every American between the ages of 17 and 45 to get their butts to an NRA course at the very least.

I would prefer that every American male be required to take Basic and Advanced Infantry training (No military service, just graduate from the Infantry school and go about your merry way) right after high school, but I can compromise.

LawDog
In this context, those in the organized militia do indeed receive such training.

Something similar, if not quite as indepth, could be offered to those in the unorganized militia. But an offer all the same; as historically it has never been a general requirement.

As an aside, there are millions of people in this country who have already had such training; be they ex-service people, peace officers etc.

If our government had anything objective in mind here, they have had, and still do have, plenty of good reason to call up the unorganized militia into national service, and offer such training to those who have not had any previous military or civil schooling in the subject matters. This since 9/11 and the ongoing disaster called the US-Canadian and US-Mexican borders.

The fact is, the unorganized militia and the relevent 2nd Amendment, and similar statutes in the State Constitutions, are antagonistic to the agenda of the current Administration and most all previous going back to WW2. The last thing they want is a Constitutionally armed populace and a number of Federal and State agencies lose their status quo, be made redundant and cease to exist. Ultimately a power and control issue.
--------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

LAK
February 8, 2006, 04:05 AM
Policing in America first resembled the type of policing practiced by "Peelers", the officers of Sir Robert Peel, also known as "bobbies". Law enforcement officers practiced a watchman-style of policing.

There was an innate sense of respect for the police officer of that time, who was unarmed and apprehended criminals mostly by their immediate compliance.
And if you read, even on the founding institution's website today; the concept on which they were based, they were considered, and considered theselves, was that they were members of the public who wore uniforms and had a particular task. In other words, as has been previously discussed; public servants.

Times changed.
If from here on you refer to the 1930s, time simply passed. What changed was a stupid and provocative government act called "prohibition", and the subsequent government move to (ahem) control the drug and alcohol trade. Or rather tax the latter. They had such a hard time controlling the drug trade that they contrived a "war" for political show while enhancing their powers. This while the trade inceased of course. ;)
Newer breeds of criminals arose, those who had no problems arming themselves and attacking even law enforcement officers if they were discovered during their illegal enterprise. In response, law enforcement officers were also armed.
This is really untrue; such criminals have manifested themselves since the beginning of civilization and have been evident in this country since the 1700s. The only difference is that a freely armed populace is not cowered by such thugs and gangs or perceives any false ideas of dependence on the State for their protection. And the State is not about to capitalize on their helplessness to justify it's own usurpations and injustices.
Until the later part of the 1970's and 80's, police officers were armed with only revolvers--and those were .38 Special Model 10's, thank you very much. Older administrators saw no need to equip police officers any further.

Incidents like the Newhall massacre--where four police officers were killed in the face of superior firepower from the bad guys--made police administration realize that the tables had turned.

Moreover, during the turbulent 70's, a new problem emerged. Police officers were actually hunted by the bad guys. More and more often, plans for a stickup included laying an ambush for the responding cops.
All the above could be basically transposed over anywhere USA c.1880 for example.
There used to be two categories of "protected" citizens--kids and cops. Touch a kid, and your days were numbered--if not by the citizenry, then by your own kind when you went to the big house.

Kill a cop, and the conventional wisdom was that you would not see the inside of a station house. You'd be dead before you got there.

Look at what happens now.
We do not need "protected" classes of citizens. We need Legislatures that periodically if needed, impeaches and lays criminal penalties against individual judges that do not do their job for for the protection of every citizen.
In the ever changing face of crime, and the increased use of firepower by the bad guys, police officers started gearing up and ramping up their tactics. This was done to ensure the survivability of the officers, as well as giving them the tools they needed to apprehend violent criminals.

The face of law enforcement took on a more aggresive posture, and we started actively going after the bad guys.

So, here it is in a nutshell. Read this, study this and remember it well.

The reason that we, as law enforcement officers are suited up; carry military type firearms and equipment and practice military tactics is simply this:

IT SAVES LIVES.

How so? Consider the bad guy, entrenched in his home. He looks up and sees Officer Friendly knocking on his door. "Now, fella, open up. I have to take you in, you have warrants."

Oh, he'll open up all right--with whatever firearm he has at hand.

Now, think of the same bad guy. He looks up and sees about 8 jumpsuited officers entering the yard, four to the front and four to the rear. They're moving with a purpose, clad in Nomex. He sees the MP5's and the shotguns. He glances across the street and catches a movement in the shadows--it's the precision rifle and spotter, and he's being boresighted by an accurized .308 rifle.

Before the door is even kicked in, he's proned out. Lives are saved today, and no bullets were flying in the neighborhood.

Properly executed tactics and dynamic entries save FAR more lives than they take. They are done to make the BG think twice before the trigger is pulled.

And if they choose the trigger, then the high-quality precision arms used by the SRT ensure that the bullets flying around will be kept to an absolute minimum.

So, to all who continually second guess us, here's an offer:

I'll let you perform warrant service on a crack house. You go in by yourself, armed with a .38 revolver and two reloads. Go in in a police Class B uniform.

Have fun, now!
The safest way to deal with a badguy entrenched in his home - his castle - is to wait until his next trip to the grocery store or plethora of other opportunities, and quietly take him off his feet when he does not expect it. There are a thousand ways to do this, and any well-trained team of suitable people can do it.
----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

tellner
February 8, 2006, 05:29 AM
Talk to your union rep or make it a negotiated part of your hire package or buy it yourself. Not that I believe your statistic.

NIH and NBLS look at the risks associated with various jobs. Cab driver and construction worker were by far the most dangerous. Police officer isn't even close.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 07:29 AM
On to the topic at hand:


Yes, police officers should most certainly have access to the tools they deem necessary. IGive the police M-16's, .50 cals, Mp5's...now let's all work towards getting those same items for us non-leo citizens as well.

What should not be occuring, is hot weapons being pointed at persons that do not show a credible threat. They can have the tools they feel are necessary to do their job IMHO, I am more concerned with how they use or misuse them. Nothing wrong with having a lot of back-up armed to the teeth, there is no excuse for an accidental shooting because a SWAT ninja has a gun pointed at a non-violent person cooperating with the police and his finger hit the trigger.

Keep the guns at low ready or raised but pointed slight off-target and your finger off the trigger. Respond in force all you want, 10-15 officers per suspect if you feel like it, but don't turn an arrest into a kill zone because you wanted to cut a corner and endanger a citizen with the right not to be negligently executed by a person with a badge just to save a few hundredths of a seconds on getting on target when there is no reason to believe a credible threat exists.Absolutely! It boggles the mind that cops think they have the unhindered right to point a loaded weapon at someone who has demonstrated no indication of anything but full cooperation, and who is presumed, therefore, entirely innocent under the law. Pointing a loaded gun at someone is the crime of assault in itself, and requires the excuse of necessity to avoid prosecution under the law. Oh, that's right. What was I thinking? Cops are above the law in the United States nowadays. Gosh, I made the mistake of thinking the rule of law was in place and the Founders actually accomplished something way back when. Never mind. :banghead:

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 07:43 AM
The safest way to deal with a badguy entrenched in his home - his castle - is to wait until his next trip to the grocery store or plethora of other opportunities, and quietly take him off his feet when he does not expect it. There are a thousand ways to do this, and any well-trained team of suitable people can do it.Absolutely, but those other ways don't make headlines. Killing someone who was resisting arrest does, and that's what they're after. It has to be, or they would, as you say, simply wait for them to leave their "bunker" for some groceries, or whatever.

molonlabe
February 8, 2006, 08:03 AM
I just read Roberts reply and it echoes my sentiments completely, and is far more articulate than I could muster. Hats off to you sir. I did not even find the post worthy of a reply but you certainly proved me wrong.

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 08:15 AM
Moreover, during the turbulent 70's, a new problem emerged. Police officers were actually hunted by the bad guys. More and more often, plans for a stickup included laying an ambush for the responding cops.

There used to be two categories of "protected" citizens--kids and cops. Touch a kid, and your days were numbered--if not by the citizenry, then by your own kind when you went to the big house.

Kill a cop, and the conventional wisdom was that you would not see the inside of a station house. You'd be dead before you got there.

Look at what happens now.



No one else has mentioned this so I thought I'd get some clarification. You are, of course, discussing the murder of those suspected of being cop killers. Are you actually suggesting that such murders were a good thing? Are you bemoaning the fact that such murders don't typically take place these days?

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 01:15 PM
Rodney King? I seem to remember that the police brought that one about. Heck, that almost makes a better case against you than for you. :neener:

Couldn't resist.

Perhaps I did overestimate your cognitive ability. My mistake. From now on, I will simply remember that you are ignorant.

It was simply an example of a situation where the absence of law enforcement coupled with the criminal element running wild resulted in the natural result of why law and order is necessary.

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 01:20 PM
Truthfully? Perhaps you would do yourself and other law enforcement officers a favor if you changed your own attitudes to remove some of that self-pitying, arrogant hostility. After reading your message and those of some other law enforcement officers here I was troubled by such attitudes. They're insular and inward dwelling and they might be at least partly responsible for creating increasing fear and mistrust. My own life experiences have shown that people do tend to resent those they perceive as maltreating them or indifferent to them or removed from them as a breed apart.

The Washington Post article that stimulated this thread called attention to people killed unnecessarily by SWAT teams and questioned the appropriateness of that kind of police work. Your response is to ask "Could someone tell me, truthfully--why you guys hate cops, so much?" You might be able to get the answer to that question by reading the article and then reading your own response.

Since you're concerned with hostile stereotyping of the police you might also want to reconsider the wisdom of listing your occupation this way in your Profile:



Think about what you're doing in the context of this explanation by a social psychologist (http://www.users.muohio.edu/shermarc/p324bs3.shtml): "It is common to hear gang members refer to police as 'pigs', 'po-pos', or '5-os.' By doing this, gang members are lumping police into a category and robbing them of any individuality. Gang members feel that all cops have the same characteristics, opinions, and behaviors. One stereotype that gang members have of police is that they are all out to get them. More specifically, gang members feel that police even go to the extreme as to promote gang wars between different gangs." Why assume those atttitudes?

Speaking for myself I don't "hate" cops and I most certainly don't "hate" you. Your attitudes, though, might well be causing increasing fear and mistrust among many people. That's unfortunate--for us all. Rejoin the rest of us, do your work professionally and prudently but without the air of martrydom or superiority, and recognize that many of us serve our fellow man without such resentments. Life isn't always easy but there's no reason to make it harder or to find yourself a place elsewhere.


So...boiling your post down...you essentially are lumping police into a category and robbing them of any individuality.

Hmm. Ok.:scrutiny:

BFWE
February 8, 2006, 01:39 PM
To predicate my comments:
(1) I was a county-level LEO in Harris Co. Texas for 10 years.
(2) Not a part of a SRT or SWAT team at any time during those years - my choice.
(3) Yes I do have a military background.

There are so many things wrong with politics and LE that it is hard to point to a particulare instance of say, "see, that's the problem!" Personnally, I find two of the most distrubing are (1) the continued militarization of police functions and (2) inclusion of political correctness in LE management practices.

The end result is a LE community that is increasingly alienated from the population/society and missused for politically ends frustrating both the PO's and society. This is most prevelant at the federal level of LE but it exists at every level.

Please take this as intended... mearly as my point-of-view.

Powderman
February 8, 2006, 01:49 PM
Truthfully? Perhaps you would do yourself and other law enforcement officers a favor if you changed your own attitudes to remove some of that self-pitying, arrogant hostility.

Uh, excuse me.....just curious.

I read and re-read this passage, over and over again. How am I being self pitying and arrogant, all rolled up in one nice neat little package? I wonder.

Hmmm. Let's see...

"Gang members feel that all cops have the same characteristics, opinions, and behaviors. One stereotype that gang members have of police is that they are all out to get them. "

Kind of like folks referring to as JBT's, militaristic, overpowering, overbearing, fascist bullies, isn't it?

Think about it.

The threads in which some of the members here seem to band together to verbally hang the police--and all who support them--seem to, "feel that all cops have the same characteristics, opinions, and behaviors."

It kinda looks that way.

Your attitudes, though, might well be causing increasing fear and mistrust among many people.

And, pray tell, what do you think I feel, when I read passages (none in this thread yet, thank heavens--but be patient...) that mention that some of the members of this board would have NO problems killing ME while I'm in the performance of my duties?
If you doubt this, do a search of the archives of this board.

And some folks are actually ASTONISHED at the fact that we wear Nomex, balaclavas, carry military grade firearms, wear lots of body armor, and tend to have a mistrust of the general public?

No, my friend. I look at all of us, police and non-police, as equals.

I fear that some of the general public, though, tend to harbor a certain fear of those in uniform. And, may I add, it's an irrational fear.

Please don't quote to me these examples of "whole neighborhoods cordoned off by police" and say that they're examples of cops gone wrong.

Do you even KNOW what the cops were going after? Have you seen the search warrant? Do you know the measure of probable cause that was presented?

And, while you're at it, if you question our tactics, equipment and mindset, do a search, and watch the video of the murder--no, the SLAUGHTER--of Sheriff's Deputy Kyle Dinkheller.

See what happens when Officer Friendly meets an armed, intoxicated, combat veteran. THAT'S what we face, friend.

A general question--and yes, even a challenge--to all...

Since you know how to do our job MUCH better than we do, how about this:

I challenge ANYONE of you to apply for hire, and get selected as a police officer. Do your academy, graduate, and complete your FTO.

Then come back here and post.

Any takers? Or just hot air?

Lupinus
February 8, 2006, 01:50 PM
My fealing is cops should have the firepower needed to resolve all situations. If they need a sniper, use it. If they need a SWAT team, then hey by all means.

But using them in times not needed is redicules BS. You don't need a swat team to serve a warrent unless the subject is in an armed compound. Picking up joe shmoe for unpayed parking tickets doesn't require a swat team. Picking up Russian mob boss maybe, but not nearly as much as it's used.

tellner
February 8, 2006, 01:55 PM
From Ghastly's Ghastly Comic:

Noort is a hentai-style Tentacle Monster. Peeps is a four year old Tentacle Monster

Peeps: "Unka Noort, what's Tentacoo Wape?"
Noort: "That depends on which end of the tentacle you're on."

:D

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 02:18 PM
Perhaps I did overestimate your cognitive ability. My mistake. From now on, I will simply remember that you are ignorant.

It was simply an example of a situation where the absence of law enforcement coupled with the criminal element running wild resulted in the natural result of why law and order is necessary.


The Real Hawkeye said:
Why do you assume that the absence of army of armed uniformed government enforcers among us would result in anarchy? Government which is by the consent of the governed does not require an army of government agents to impose it on the people.


You Said:
Why do you assume it won't?

Two words: Rodney King

Now unless your native language is not English, yet looks surprisingly like it, your statement conveyed the idea that a lack of officers of the law would result in lawlessness, your example was the Rodney King riots.

My statement that is almost makes a better case against you than for you stems from the fact that since the officers were a catalyst of that particular lawlessness as they helped to bring the entire crisis to fruition by beating Mr. King, it could be argued that yes, without police officers there would be lawlessness; however, since they started it, it could also be argued that without them to start it, the lawlessness would have never occurred in the first place, thus negating the need for them on that level. Pardon me for the run-on sentence, but I think it got the point across.


Aside from that, this is at least the second time you have launched a childish insult at me when I have responded to an argument of yours. My response was light-hearted (as indicated by the fun-loving smiley guy) and showed no aggression or animosity, nor was that my intent. If you cannot behave like a civilized adult in this discussion forum, perhaps it is best that you discontinue responding to me, as I will do with you. I vowed to stop responding to you in the last thread where you tossed an insult out (one that you oddly enough edited out shortly after posting), but since you have shown to be unable to confine your offensive nature to that particular thread, as I said, perhaps the best remedy is to cease all communication.

If you feel you need to insult me because you lack a sufficient point, perhaps you should rethink the value of your participation in these threads. It is an issue I have struggled with in the past also, so I can appreciate the challenge you face in overcoming your childish instincts and I wish you the best. When you are ready for mature discourse, I would welcome the opportunity to pick up where we left off, sans the infantile banter of course. This is The High Road after all.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 02:24 PM
Perhaps I did overestimate your cognitive ability. My mistake. From now on, I will simply remember that you are ignorant.

It was simply an example of a situation where the absence of law enforcement coupled with the criminal element running wild resulted in the natural result of why law and order is necessary.In the LA riots, the police were nowhere to be seen. Any armed response to the barbarians was done by those few non-cop citizens who had adequate arms in their possession, most feeling too intimidated to do so by the State's laws restricting the carry of weapons by non-police officers. The cops were all hiding out in the unaffected areas. So, no, yours is not an example of how the police maintain order during riots. Any order that was maintained was done by the few non-cop citizens who were brave enough to ignore the laws against bearing arms.

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 02:29 PM
In the LA riots, the police were nowhere to be seen. Any armed response to the barbarians was done by those few civilians who had adequate arms in their possession, most feeling too intimidated to do so by the State's laws restricting the carry of weapons by non-police officers. The cops were all hiding out in the unaffected areas. So, no, yours is not an example of how the police maintain order during riots. Any order that was maintained was done by the few non-cop citizens who were brave enough to ignore the laws against bearing arms.

Actually, they pulled back to secure the more important areas of the city, such as some of the more up-scale business districts, neighborhoods to prevent it from spreading and to protect the majority of the tax/political base. The areas where the riots originated were left to burn. So it wasn't that they abandoned LA, the police were just ordered to pull back and hold the line elsewhere until the National Guard could arrive. Triage on a mass scale.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 02:36 PM
Actually, they pulled back to secure the more important areas of the city, such as some of the more up-scale business districts, neighborhoods to prevent it from spreading and to protect the majority of the tax/political base. The areas where the riots originated were left to burn. So it wasn't that they abandoned LA, the police were just ordered to pull back and hold the line elsewhere until the National Guard could arrive. Triage on a mass scale.

It's likely a matter of perspective. If you were one of the Officers, surely your take would be exactly as you just described it, because I am sure they were not told to "let the ghettos burn", nor would they silently comply with such an order.

However, if you were in one of the affected areas, it is not difficult to imagine why you might have felt abandoned, especially if you weren't one of the rioters.

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 02:44 PM
It's likely a matter of perspective. If you were one of the Officers, surely your take would be exactly as you just described it, because I am sure they were not told to "let the ghettos burn", nor would they silently comply with such an order.

However, if you were in one of the affected areas, it is not difficult to imagine why you might have felt abandoned, especially if you weren't one of the rioters.

Perspective comes into play when one observes the facts, not the facts themselves. The statement that the cops abandoned the area was offered as a fact, but we all owe it to ourselves and the discussion to acknowledge that there was more involved than that.

Those in the affected areas are right to feel abandoned, because they were. They aren't right to feel as they should have been protected because they had no realistic expectation of protection. Not only were the police not legally required to assist them, they were legally authorized not to assist them (i.e. they had no duty to protect and the right to make a specific decision not to protect). Unfortunately, that's not something covered in most civics classes, which tend to not cover much of import anyway.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 02:50 PM
Perspective comes into play when one observes the facts, not the facts themselves. The statement that the cops abandoned the area was offered as a fact, but we all owe it to ourselves and the discussion to acknowledge that there was more involved than that.

Those in the affected areas are right to feel abandoned, because they were. They aren't right to feel as they should have been protected because they had no realistic expectation of protection. Not only were the police not legally required to assist them, they were legally authorized not to assist them (i.e. they had no duty to protect and the right to make a specific decision not to protect). Unfortunately, that's not something covered in most civics classes, which tend to not cover much of import anyway.Good point.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 03:02 PM
Perspective comes into play when one observes the facts, not the facts themselves. The statement that the cops abandoned the area was offered as a fact, but we all owe it to ourselves and the discussion to acknowledge that there was more involved than that.

Those in the affected areas are right to feel abandoned, because they were. They aren't right to feel as they should have been protected because they had no realistic expectation of protection. Not only were the police not legally required to assist them, they were legally authorized not to assist them (i.e. they had no duty to protect and the right to make a specific decision not to protect). Unfortunately, that's not something covered in most civics classes, which tend to not cover much of import anyway.

Agreed.

Robert Hairless
February 8, 2006, 04:11 PM
So...boiling your post down...you essentially are lumping police into a category and robbing them of any individuality.

Hmm. Ok.:scrutiny:

No. You've evidently mistaken me for Powderman. Perhaps if you read his message again and look at what he wrote in his own Profile you'll see that it was he who is "lumping police into a category and robbing them of any individuality." It is he who sees himself "as John Law, 5-0, the po-po!" and it is I who am suggesting that he not lump himself into a category and rob himself of any individuality.

What's fascinating about threads like this is that they seem inevitably to go this same course. The situation that initiated this thread is one in which an unarmed Virginia optometrist, with no history of violence, was killed by a member of a SWAT team that was used to arrest him on a gambling charge. Gambling is not a capital offense in Virginia. Optometry probably isn't either, not even in Virginia. But many law enforcement officers, in this thread and others, evade that situation and respond as Powderman has responded--by lumping themselves together into a group that has special problems, deserves special sympathy, and therefore are entitled to special exemptions when they kill a few people they probably shouldn't have.

But that Virginia optometrist is dead and so too, according to the Washington Post article, are other people killed by SWAT teams employed to use excessive force and the risk of such fatal consequences in situations where their use is not obviously appropriate. Those people who die are admittedly only "civilians" and the police admittedly should be concerned about preserving their own lives, but the explicit point is whether that legitimate concern has evolved into something far different and quite frightening in its implications. If law enforcement officers really are so frightened by the possibility of being harmed by everyone else--even unarmed, non-violent Virginia optometrists--perhaps our society has indeed developed in a way that needs correction. Either we can try to change everyone who isn't a law enforcement officer or we can suggest that maybe some law enforcement officers need to change themselves. Or perhaps we can wait for them to reach juries, at least some of which comprise "civilians" of the kinds hostile to them.

I think that it would be far wiser--and far more human--if such law enforcement officers were to stop pursuing this same tired course whenever incidents like this are discussed. It is they who declare themselves a special class of human being, with special needs and entitlements, then wonder why ordinary people--"civilians"--respond to them with fear and mistrust.

People--"civilians"--who are hostile to law enforcement officers aren't born that way. Hostility is learned. Change their experiences and there's a chance of changing their hostility or avoiding its increase. Or continue the usual course and learn to live with hostility. But don't expect the people in whom you've created hostility to like you better if you use even greater force against them or mistreat them even more and attempt to claim special right or reason for doing so.

How you behave is a matter for you to decide. It seems unrealistic, though, for those who claim the privileges of supermen whenever possible to expect treatment as ordinary men when they stumble, or for those who show little concern or compassion for "civilians" to receive much concern or compassion from them. I could be wrong, of course, but it's probably not useful to accuse me of saying what I haven't said as a way to avoid considering what might conceivably be useful in what I have said. Either way you don't offend me though.

Robert Hairless
February 8, 2006, 04:14 PM
You know...I wonder....

...there are all sorts of posts on this website about law enforcement officers being killed in the line of duty. I wonder if folks like Molon Labe, Real Hawkeye, Otherguy Overby, SomeKid, and others actually celebrate a little when a cop goes down? You think that maybe, they are actually laughing at the officer's surviving loved ones and thinking, "serve's 'em right for trampling my rights"?

Maybe they hold up a drink and say a 'thank you' that another 'JBT' has bitten the dust.


Those accusations are despicable.

Robert Hairless
February 8, 2006, 04:29 PM
Uh, excuse me.....just curious.

I read and re-read this passage, over and over again. How am I being self pitying and arrogant, all rolled up in one nice neat little package? I wonder.

Hmmm. Let's see...

"Gang members feel that all cops have the same characteristics, opinions, and behaviors. One stereotype that gang members have of police is that they are all out to get them. "

Kind of like folks referring to as JBT's, militaristic, overpowering, overbearing, fascist bullies, isn't it?

Think about it.

The threads in which some of the members here seem to band together to verbally hang the police--and all who support them--seem to, "feel that all cops have the same characteristics, opinions, and behaviors."

It kinda looks that way.



And, pray tell, what do you think I feel, when I read passages (none in this thread yet, thank heavens--but be patient...) that mention that some of the members of this board would have NO problems killing ME while I'm in the performance of my duties?
If you doubt this, do a search of the archives of this board.

And some folks are actually ASTONISHED at the fact that we wear Nomex, balaclavas, carry military grade firearms, wear lots of body armor, and tend to have a mistrust of the general public?

No, my friend. I look at all of us, police and non-police, as equals.

I fear that some of the general public, though, tend to harbor a certain fear of those in uniform. And, may I add, it's an irrational fear.

Please don't quote to me these examples of "whole neighborhoods cordoned off by police" and say that they're examples of cops gone wrong.

Do you even KNOW what the cops were going after? Have you seen the search warrant? Do you know the measure of probable cause that was presented?

And, while you're at it, if you question our tactics, equipment and mindset, do a search, and watch the video of the murder--no, the SLAUGHTER--of Sheriff's Deputy Kyle Dinkheller.

See what happens when Officer Friendly meets an armed, intoxicated, combat veteran. THAT'S what we face, friend.

A general question--and yes, even a challenge--to all...

Since you know how to do our job MUCH better than we do, how about this:

I challenge ANYONE of you to apply for hire, and get selected as a police officer. Do your academy, graduate, and complete your FTO.

Then come back here and post.

Any takers? Or just hot air?

I see now that you have a rough life far beyond anything encountered by ordinary people, those who are not police officers, to whom you devote your life for the sake of protecting them but who don't sufficiently appreciate all you do for them. They're not worthy of the sacrifices you make. Anyone who does not apply for fire and get selected as a police officer, who doesn't do his academy, graduate, and complete his FTO should not even comment on police matters here. They are lesser men who spew hot air.

Of course you are not self-pitying and arrogant all rolled up into one nice neat little package. You are important and right and better than everyone else and they just don't appreciate you.

Note: I apologize for my sarcasm. It was unwarranted and inappropriate. What I do want to suggest is that you reread your message to see if perhaps you can see that your attitude could be interpreted in the way I've been suggesting. You might also want to consider the possibility that you've reached a point at which it might be better for you to change careers. Think about it?

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 05:15 PM
The Real Hawkeye said:



You Said:


Now unless your native language is not English, yet looks surprisingly like it, your statement conveyed the idea that a lack of officers of the law would result in lawlessness, your example was the Rodney King riots.

My statement that is almost makes a better case against you than for you stems from the fact that since the officers were a catalyst of that particular lawlessness as they helped to bring the entire crisis to fruition by beating Mr. King, it could be argued that yes, without police officers there would be lawlessness; however, since they started it, it could also be argued that without them to start it, the lawlessness would have never occurred in the first place, thus negating the need for them on that level. Pardon me for the run-on sentence, but I think it got the point across.


Aside from that, this is at least the second time you have launched a childish insult at me when I have responded to an argument of yours. My response was light-hearted (as indicated by the fun-loving smiley guy) and showed no aggression or animosity, nor was that my intent. If you cannot behave like a civilized adult in this discussion forum, perhaps it is best that you discontinue responding to me, as I will do with you. I vowed to stop responding to you in the last thread where you tossed an insult out (one that you oddly enough edited out shortly after posting), but since you have shown to be unable to confine your offensive nature to that particular thread, as I said, perhaps the best remedy is to cease all communication.

If you feel you need to insult me because you lack a sufficient point, perhaps you should rethink the value of your participation in these threads. It is an issue I have struggled with in the past also, so I can appreciate the challenge you face in overcoming your childish instincts and I wish you the best. When you are ready for mature discourse, I would welcome the opportunity to pick up where we left off, sans the infantile banter of course. This is The High Road after all.


Oh...I'm sorry. Let me try this.

Perhaps I did overestimate your cognitive ability. My mistake. From now on, I will simply remember that you are ignorant.

It was simply an example of a situation where the absence of law enforcement coupled with the criminal element running wild resulted in the natural result of why law and order is necessary.:neener:

I said you were ignorant, not stupid. There is a difference.

Now...on to your point...

My statement that is almost makes a better case against you than for you stems from the fact that since the officers were a catalyst of that particular lawlessness as they helped to bring the entire crisis to fruition by beating Mr. King, it could be argued that yes, without police officers there would be lawlessness; however, since they started it, it could also be argued that without them to start it, the lawlessness would have never occurred in the first place, thus negating the need for them on that level. Pardon me for the run-on sentence, but I think it got the point across.

No.

What started the 'Rodney King Riots' was a bunch of thugs, criminals, racists and other assorted human debris who got ticked off at a court ruling and decided to burn down their neighborhoods, egged on by a sensationalistic media machine that thrives on 'human drama'.

When the scene rolled beyond control, and the LAPD pulled all their police out (an asinine decision on their part, I might add), then everyone got to witness, live and in color, what life would be like without law enforcement; without law and order.

The riots were no more the original responding officer's fault any more than they were Rodney King's fault.

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by M-Rex
You know...I wonder....

...there are all sorts of posts on this website about law enforcement officers being killed in the line of duty. I wonder if folks like Molon Labe, Real Hawkeye, Otherguy Overby, SomeKid, and others actually celebrate a little when a cop goes down? You think that maybe, they are actually laughing at the officer's surviving loved ones and thinking, "serve's 'em right for trampling my rights"?

Maybe they hold up a drink and say a 'thank you' that another 'JBT' has bitten the dust.


Those accusations are despicable.


And yet, not one of the posters I mentioned has made an attempt to deny it. Their silence on the matter is deafening.

Despicable...depends on your point of view.
Improbable...not on a good day.

Deavis
February 8, 2006, 05:21 PM
We have the right to keep and bear arms. Along with that right, we have the responsibility, the obligation, and the duty to be "well-regulated", that is (as intended by the men who wrote the Constitution) "well-trained".

Now, I don't know about y'all, but I don't see the average 17-45 year-old American male as being trained worth a diddly, we won't even get to "well-trained".

Your challenge is a little bit miguided. What you should be doing is comparing officers who carry weapons with citizens who choose to carry weapons. If a citizen chooses not to exercise their right, then there is absolutely no reason to test their proficiency with a weapon. It would be like testing your unarmed volunteers for proficiency.

I am willing to bet money that if you compared the shooting ability of all police who carry a weapon during their job and citizens who choose to carry weapons everyday, the citizens would probably be better shooters. It is almost unfair because citizens that carry are self-motivated to do so and that often times means they practice frequently whereas many officers who carry do not practice and just manage a qualification. Certainly not everyone does, but the simple fact that a citizen must exert some effort to carry a weapon favors them by reducing the population of lazy individuals.

I wonder what percentage of the top competitive shooters in the world are LEOs right now? Maybe someone actually knows, I don't.

buzz_knox
February 8, 2006, 05:25 PM
And yet, not one of the posters I mentioned has made an attempt to deny it. Their silence on the matter is deafening.

Despicable...depends on your point of view.
Improbable...not on a good day.

I asked Powderman to clarify whether he was unhappy suspected cop killers weren't murdered before getting to the station. He hasn't said anything yet. Would you agree, based on your standard, that your fellow officer supports murder?

I think the more likely answer to that is he hasn't seen it to respond to, followed by the somewhat likely possibility that he realizes what he wrote, and doesn't want to compound his error. The answer to why no one has responded to your libel is, most likely, they have are simply considering the source. Why debate someone as arrogant and self-righteous as you? Or, perhaps, they are taking the more effective task of simply putting you on the ignore list. That's a task I will personally enjoy.

molonlabe
February 8, 2006, 05:32 PM
...there are all sorts of posts on this website about law enforcement officers being killed in the line of duty. I wonder if folks like Molon Labe, Real Hawkeye, Otherguy Overby, SomeKid, and others actually celebrate a little when a cop goes down? You think that maybe, they are actually laughing at the officer's surviving loved ones and thinking, "serve's 'em right for trampling my rights"?

Maybe they hold up a drink and say a 'thank you' that another 'JBT' has bitten the dust.


Your accusation was deplorable and despicable and not worthy of a response and clearly not in the spirit of the high road. But since you brought it back up.

BTW there is a Molon Labe on this board, don't confuse us please.

The Real Hawkeye
February 8, 2006, 05:32 PM
And yet, not one of the posters I mentioned has made an attempt to deny it. Their silence on the matter is deafening.I chose not to dignify it with a response.

Deavis
February 8, 2006, 05:41 PM
It was simply an example of a situation where the absence of law enforcement coupled with the criminal element running wild resulted in the natural result of why law and order is necessary.

Interesting... So how do you explain the areas of LA that weren't burned and looted even though LEOs weren't there? You know, the ones where citizens were standing guard with weapons? Korean shop owners protecting their neighborhoods? Perhaps if more citizens had the backbone to guard what is theirs, then the riots would have been quickly quelled.

Despite what many LEOs think, they do not have the monopoly on providing law and order in society. Even with their lack of "formal" training, many citizens are more than capable of stepping up to the task, regular old citizens have been doing it since the beginning of time, and are still doing it today. Powderman, no offense to your profession, but plenty of average Joe Six Pack's run into burning buildings to save people or dive into frigid lakes to pull a young child to saftey. An armed citizen in Texas recenly died trying to stop a madman on a rampage outside a courthouse. You don't hear those people demanding praise for their selfless acts and posturing about how good they are. LEOs, despite the posturing by many, also do not have a monopoly on selfless bravery.

Also, policework is far from the most dangerous job you can engage in, so save the martyr speech for an after school special. Certainly the job is dangerous and you come up against bad elements, but so does the average citizen. It is a game of statistics, with many officers never having to draw their gun in the line of duty just like most citizens never have to use theirs. The police say, "We have to operate this way just in case that one drunk combat veteran shows up," yet they act like citizens don't face the possibility of a similiar confrontation, which is hogwash. Maybe someone can get some statistics and see how the percentage of police involved in a deliberate planned deliberate attack compares with that of citizens.

Lastly, in the same vein as the proceeding statement, women of small stature are targeted by rapists everyday, old people are targeted by muggers, and young children targeted by abusive adults. LEOs aren't the only people with a target placed on their back by bad people. Everyone deserves the ability to protect themself with the best tools possible, if they so choose.

NineseveN
February 8, 2006, 05:48 PM
I have to laugh at folks so obviously biased to 100% Pro-Police ignoring the fact that a bunch of cops beat the snot out of Rodney King when discussing the riots that stemmed from the entire set of events that followed.

When that beating was inadequately punished, folks rioted, and the 100% pro-police guys side step what happened to bring the case to the courts (both the courts of law and public opinion) and simply say it was the thugs that caused the riots, like they did it because they all had nothing better to do.

Whether or not Mr. King deserved a good beating is not relevant, what one deserves is not always the basis for law.

Whether or not the riots were the correct course of action is no more or less relevant than whether or not beating the snot out of Rodney king was the correct course of action. Neither were the best ideas, but one came before the other and set certain events in motion that ultimately led to the other. Moral right or wrong has no bearing if we are simply seeking out the catalyst for a set of events, justification has little place in discussions on causality.

Saying that the police were not the catalyst for the Rodney King beating is simply ludicrous. If the police did not beat the guy, on tape, it would have never went to court, no one would have rioted. How many large scale riots like that has the country been subject to since then? I'll allow three guesses, the first two don't count.

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 07:52 PM
I asked Powderman to clarify whether he was unhappy suspected cop killers weren't murdered before getting to the station. He hasn't said anything yet. Would you agree, based on your standard, that your fellow officer supports murder?

I think the more likely answer to that is he hasn't seen it to respond to, followed by the somewhat likely possibility that he realizes what he wrote, and doesn't want to compound his error. The answer to why no one has responded to your libel is, most likely, they have are simply considering the source. Why debate someone as arrogant and self-righteous as you? Or, perhaps, they are taking the more effective task of simply putting you on the ignore list. That's a task I will personally enjoy.

Well you showed me, now didn't you? :rolleyes:

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 07:53 PM
Your accusation was deplorable and despicable and not worthy of a response and clearly not in the spirit of the high road. But since you brought it back up.

BTW there is a Molon Labe on this board, don't confuse us please.

You weren't the molonlabe I was referring to. Sleep with a clear conscience.

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 07:58 PM
Interesting... So how do you explain the areas of LA that weren't burned and looted even though LEOs weren't there? You know, the ones where citizens were standing guard with weapons? Korean shop owners protecting their neighborhoods? Perhaps if more citizens had the backbone to guard what is theirs, then the riots would have been quickly quelled.

Well put.

Despite what many LEOs think, they do not have the monopoly on providing law and order in society. Even with their lack of "formal" training, many citizens are more than capable of stepping up to the task, regular old citizens have been doing it since the beginning of time, and are still doing it today. Powderman, no offense to your profession, but plenty of average Joe Six Pack's run into burning buildings to save people or dive into frigid lakes to pull a young child to saftey. An armed citizen in Texas recenly died trying to stop a madman on a rampage outside a courthouse. You don't hear those people demanding praise for their selfless acts and posturing about how good they are. LEOs, despite the posturing by many, also do not have a monopoly on selfless bravery.

Alas, the majority do not. The ones who do should be, and are recognized.

Also, policework is far from the most dangerous job you can engage in, so save the martyr speech for an after school special. Certainly the job is dangerous and you come up against bad elements, but so does the average citizen. It is a game of statistics, with many officers never having to draw their gun in the line of duty just like most citizens never have to use theirs. The police say, "We have to operate this way just in case that one drunk combat veteran shows up," yet they act like citizens don't face the possibility of a similiar confrontation, which is hogwash. Maybe someone can get some statistics and see how the percentage of police involved in a deliberate planned deliberate attack compares with that of citizens.

Martyr speech, indeed.

Lastly, in the same vein as the proceeding statement, women of small stature are targeted by rapists everyday, old people are targeted by muggers, and young children targeted by abusive adults. LEOs aren't the only people with a target placed on their back by bad people. Everyone deserves the ability to protect themself with the best tools possible, if they so choose.

And?

What exactly is your point?

Powderman
February 8, 2006, 08:02 PM
I asked Powderman to clarify whether he was unhappy suspected cop killers weren't murdered before getting to the station. He hasn't said anything yet. Would you agree, based on your standard, that your fellow officer supports murder?

I think the more likely answer to that is he hasn't seen it to respond to, followed by the somewhat likely possibility that he realizes what he wrote, and doesn't want to compound his error. The answer to why no one has responded to your libel is, most likely, they have are simply considering the source. Why debate someone as arrogant and self-righteous as you? Or, perhaps, they are taking the more effective task of simply putting you on the ignore list. That's a task I will personally enjoy.

Compound my error? I don't think so.

A cop killer--suspected or proven--deserves his day in a Court of law, with competent representation; must have the opportunity to examine the evidence brought against him or her; must have the opportunity to confront those accusers, face to face, in said Court; must have the opportunity to exercise the RIGHT to a fair jury by an impartial trial, and if they wish, the right to appeal the verdict to a higher Court.

Let there be NO misunderstanding:

The Constitution enumerates rights which we have as human beings. The Constitution does NOT give us ANYTHING; it simply articulates what we have.

We as law enforcement officers MUST ensure that those rights are known, observed, and NEVER violated.

Are there bad cops? Of course! Are rights violated, even trampled on? Yes, they are. Are people brutalized, wrongfully arrested, framed, set up? Absolutely.

AND I WILL BE THE FIRST TO PUT HANDCUFFS ON ANY SCUM WEARING A BADGE WHO ASSAULTS, BRUTALIZES, OR OTHERWISE HARASSES A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, UNDER COLOR OF LAW. I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN--THERE IS NOTHING IN MY EYES WORSE THAN A CORRUPT, BULLYING COP.

Period.

And, with that, I think I'm done with this thread. Have a nice day, and try to get it through your heads: The bad cops you cite in this thread are the EXCEPTION, not the norm.

See you all later.

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 08:07 PM
I have to laugh at folks so obviously biased to 100% Pro-Police ignoring the fact that a bunch of cops beat the snot out of Rodney King when discussing the riots that stemmed from the entire set of events that followed.

When that beating was inadequately punished, folks rioted, and the 100% pro-police guys side step what happened to bring the case to the courts (both the courts of law and public opinion) and simply say it was the thugs that caused the riots, like they did it because they all had nothing better to do.

Whether or not Mr. King deserved a good beating is not relevant, what one deserves is not always the basis for law.

Whether or not the riots were the correct course of action is no more or less relevant than whether or not beating the snot out of Rodney king was the correct course of action. Neither were the best ideas, but one came before the other and set certain events in motion that ultimately led to the other. Moral right or wrong has no bearing if we are simply seeking out the catalyst for a set of events, justification has little place in discussions on causality.

Saying that the police were not the catalyst for the Rodney King beating is simply ludicrous. If the police did not beat the guy, on tape, it would have never went to court, no one would have rioted. How many large scale riots like that has the country been subject to since then? I'll allow three guesses, the first two don't count.

Well...hello moral relativism.

See...this is what I mean by ignorant. You are assuming that the officers involved simply picked out the angelic Mr. King to beat seemingly at random.

Ignorant. You do not know what you are talking about, other than what your television told you to think.

The police were not the catalyst for the riot. A bunch of thugs, criminals, racists, and human debris were waiting for an opportunity to burn down their neighborhoods at a moment's notice. They were proverbial brats throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way. The court decision didn't go the way they wanted. Well too bad. It sucks to be them. Their response: Let's burn the city! Lot's of court cases go sideways when folks expect them to go straight. However, you don't see the ruffians of Hackensack, Nebraska rising up to burn down their city. The court system is what it is. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes it doesn't work so great.

They didn't have anything to do with the court case or the original incident anyway. They just wanted an opportunity to burn down Los Angeles.

M-Rex
February 8, 2006, 08:12 PM
Compound my error? I don't think so.

A cop killer--suspected or proven--deserves his day in a Court of law, with competent representation; must have the opportunity to examine the evidence brought against him or her; must have the opportunity to confront those accusers, face to face, in said Court; must have the opportunity to exercise the RIGHT to a fair jury by an impartial trial, and if they wish, the right to appeal the verdict to a higher Court.

Let there be NO misunderstanding:

The Constitution enumerates rights which we have as human beings. The Constitution does NOT give us ANYTHING; it simply articulates what we have.

We as law enforcement officers MUST ensure that those rights are known, observed, and NEVER violated.

Are there bad cops? Of course! Are rights violated, even trampled on? Yes, they are. Are people brutalized, wrongfully arrested, framed, set up? Absolutely.

AND I WILL BE THE FIRST TO PUT HANDCUFFS ON ANY SCUM WEARING A BADGE WHO ASSAULTS, BRUTALIZES, OR OTHERWISE HARASSES A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, UNDER COLOR OF LAW. I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, I'LL SAY IT AGAIN--THERE IS NOTHING IN MY EYES WORSE THAN A CORRUPT, BULLYING COP.

Period.

And, with that, I think I'm done with this thread. Have a nice day, and try to get it through your heads: The bad cops you cite in this thread are the EXCEPTION, not the norm.

See you all later.


Bravo, sir.

LawDog
February 8, 2006, 08:37 PM
I wonder if folks like Molon Labe, Real Hawkeye, Otherguy Overby, SomeKid, and others actually celebrate a little when a cop goes down? You think that maybe, they are actually laughing at the officer's surviving loved ones and thinking, "serve's 'em right for trampling my rights"?

Maybe they hold up a drink and say a 'thank you' that another 'JBT' has bitten the dust.

Folks, y'all are >< this close to not being allowed to post another cop thread on THR ever again.

I suggest that you take some time off and think real bloody hard on that statement.

Lights out.

LawDog

If you enjoyed reading about "WaPo - Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!