Too much power in the hands of police? You decide.

[Nightfall]

Do you mean that murderers, arsonists, rapists, robbers and burglars wear bulletproof vests now?

I don't think I need to point out the various high profile incidents involving criminals with body armor.

 

[zahc]

Ok, why do they need full auto M4s as opposed to semi auto bushy's? Heck, a 30-30, or a bolt action .308 will punch through armor every bit as good as a .223.

I don't blame the cops for having or wanting the M4s. But if they can have them THEN I WANT THEM TOO!

 

[biere]

I do think the police have too much power.

Part of the problem comes from how they enforce the laws using their own discretion at times.

Another part comes from the fact they can buy new over 10 round magazines while I can not. And of course there are the rifles already mentioned and well covered.

There are other reasons but that is plenty for now.

Overall the article continues to show me that I need to always act as though a police person looks at people in a different way than I do.

 

[greyhound]

I doubt W. was giving orders telling the police to trump up charges against blacks and other minorities.

Never doubt the ability of a significant minority of Americans to blame or show blind hatred toward the President.

Get used to it, as long as we have a "culture war" in this country the party out of power is gonna go ape on the leaders of those in power.

Started with Reagan, I think, kinda took a pass on Bush I, got into high gear with Clinton, and (thanks I believe to the internet) has reached a new low with Bush II.....

 

[Chris Rhines]

What kbr80 said:

Then you few good ones that hold the thin blue line should police yourselves. GO after the bad ones with a vengeance, if not, you are no better than they are.

Any police officer who is not actively involved in rooting out corruption and brutality in his department, shares in the moral responsibility for the crimes that the 'bad cops' commit.

- Chris

 

[12-34hom]

If theres any trouble just push the button, put it on full auto - and start blasting

Blaine, Do you actually believe that statement?

What's the big deal with Law enforcement having M4's anyway?

All the deputies in the county i work in have M-16 with full auto capabilities.

They are all qualified to use them thru the ILEA.

The department i work for has both M-14 & M-16 & Shotguns. They are merely tools of the trade. If the need would arise i have the right weapon for the job.

12-34hom.

 

[cordex]

The department i work for has both M-14 & M-16 & Shotguns. They are merely tools of the trade. If the need would arise i have the right weapon for the job.

Which to me is a very good thing.

Of course, what isn't a good thing is that unneutered M-14s and M-16s (and some LE Shotguns) are effectively banned for me due to their legislatively inflated commercial price for non-police - something that very few police are concerned about (but I do appreciate the support from those that do care).

 

[Blain]

When I don't have parity with the police, I consider it a bad thing.

 

[Art Eatman]

I don't see LEOs having more police power than in the past. If anything, less. "Back then" were no Civilian Review Boards, for instance. There was much less media coverage of conflicts between police and certain segments of a community.

There are an incredible number of new laws to be enforced, which may be what folks are concerned about. Blame Congress, legislatures and local governments for that. Certainly there is more force available to LEOs, as to weaponry. Because of the behavior of certain groups, many police are more easily given to an "us vs. them" attitude which can carry over to the "good" people.

Based on limited discussion with only a few, I have the opinion that the FLETC system has institutionalized the "us vs. them" attitude, at least to some extent. I'm dubious that this extends to the various police academies around the country...

I'll just call it my own opinion, but I think that LEOs in the past had far more leeway in making up their own rules as to exercise of police power than they do today. Or, they had a better chance of getting away with such behavior.

Art

 

[Nestor]

Sorry to all for my poor grammar in my last message I will endeavor to be more grammatically correct.


1 - The idea that cops have just now started to have US vs. Them attitude is a joke. My Father served on the Ft Worth Police force in the early 1970s and the Us/Them was going quite well. It is some times referred to as the blue line.

2 - This need to keep the FULL AUTO weapon locked is pretty obvious, and for the most part in my admittedly limited knowledge of police cars the long arm is not just sitting there it is on a locked carrier of some sort.

3 - No matter what long arm is issued to duty officers it will not matter much as most times that it would be needed it will still be in the car.

There are of course exceptions to this, it was common practice on the Ft Worth dept. when my dad was on it to bring the 12ga to any "DRUG" calls as it seemed to get more respect from the chemically enhanced.

4 - If an officer had the time to get the long arm after the need became evident ( this assumes that it is in the car not on the officers person) then most dept policies would in all likelihood NOT allow the officer to use it save in the most dire situations but instead to call in for backup probably a SWAT unit cf. Columbine High School

 

[cordex]

This need to keep the FULL AUTO weapon locked is pretty obvious, and for the most part in my admittedly limited knowledge of police cars the long arm is not just sitting there it is on a locked carrier of some sort.

No more than a semi-auto or shotgun.

 

[Cellar Dweller]

He did it "for the children" I'm sure...

The task force's only undercover agent, Tom Coleman, who is white, said he bought drugs from the defendants, but he worked alone and used no audio or video surveillance. No drugs or money were found during the arrests.

OK, how does one "buy drugs," make an arrest, then NO drugs are found? Did everyone sell him their last rock?

Coleman no longer is an officer.

He should be spending time in prison equal to the time served by the 35 that were convicted.

After their arrests, some of the first defendants who went to trial received lengthy sentences, one as much as 90 years. That prompted other defendants to take plea agreements for lesser terms out of fear of lengthy sentences. Gov. Rick Perry granted pardons to 35 of those convicted.

A pardon, or complete expulsion of the arrest/trial/plea and immediate restoration of rights lost as a result? IF there was no evidence, and Coleman was making the whole thing up (his perjury trial is coming up, remember?), then the "crime" never happened.

 

[jimpeel]

Police abuse is nothing new

In "The Development of the American Police: An Historical Overview", Craig Uchida notes that "If there is a common theme that can be used to characterize the police in the 19th Century, it is the large-scale corruption that occurred in most police departments across the United States" (Uchida, 1993).

In "Forces of Deviance: Understanding the Dark Side of Policing", Kappeler, Sluder, and Alpert point out that corruption among police is not new or peculiar to the late 20th century. "To study the history of police is to study police deviance, corruption and misconduct." (Kappeler et al., 1994.)

 

[jimpeel]

Look how many threads have addressed the issue of the militarization of the police

The Militarization of American Police

The militarization of the police?

Militarization of police (no-knocks, etc.) Part 2

Militarization of Civilian Authority (II)

Militarization of Civilian Authority

Militarization of law enforcement - web site resource

And those are just the ones at TFL and just the ones with the word "militarization in the title.

 

[jimpeel]

Here is the case of which I spoke

Here is the discussion we had here on THR:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37052

But the Supreme Court shut the door on his efforts, ruling felons can't go straight to court to get their gun rights restored and must go through a federal agency. That agency, however, has been banned by Congress since 1992 from processing requests.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=01-704

UNITED STATES et al. v. BEAN

Because of respondent's felony conviction, he was prohibited by 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1) from possessing, distributing, or receiving firearms or ammunition. Relying on §925(c), he applied to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) for relief from his firearms disabilities. ATF returned the application unprocessed, explaining that its annual appropriations law forbade it from expending any funds to investigate or act upon such applications. Invoking §925(c)'s judicial review provision, he filed suit, asking the District Court to conduct its own inquiry into his fitness to possess a gun and to issue a judicial order granting relief. The court granted the requested relief, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.


Held: The absence of an actual denial by ATF of a felon's petition precludes judicial review under §925(c). The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to grant relief from a firearms disability if certain preconditions are met, and an applicant may seek federal-court review if the Secretary denies his application. Ibid. Since 1992, however, the appropriations bar has prevented ATF, to which the Secretary has delegated this authority, from using appropriated funds to investigate or act upon the applications. Section 925(c)'s text and the procedure it lays out for seeking relief make clear that an actual decision by ATF on an application is a prerequisite for judicial review, and that mere inaction by ATF does not invest a district court with independent jurisdiction. Grammatically, the phrase "denied by the Secretary" references the Secretary's decision on whether an applicant "will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety," and whether "the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest." Such determination can hardly be construed as anything but a decision actually denying the application. Under §925(c)'s procedure for those seeking relief, the Secretary, i.e., ATF, has broad authority to grant or deny relief, even when the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. This procedure shows that judicial review cannot occur without a dispositive decision by ATF. First, in the absence of a statutorily defined standard of review for action under §925(c), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) supplies the applicable standard. 5 U. S. C. §§701(a), 706(2)(A). The APA's "arbitrary and capricious" test, by its nature, contemplates review of some action by another entity. Second, both parts of §925(c)'s standard for granting relief--whether an applicant is "likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety" and whether the relief is in the "public interest"--are policy-based determinations and, hence, point to ATF as the primary decisionmaker. Third, §925(c) allows the admission of additional evidence in district court proceedings only in exceptional circumstances. Congressional assignment of such a circumscribed role to a district court shows that the statute contemplates that a court's determination will heavily rely on the record and the ATF's decision. Indeed, the very use in §925(c) of the word "review" to describe a court's responsibility in this statutory scheme signifies that it cannot grant relief on its own, absent an antecedent actual denial by ATF. Pp. 2-7.


253 F. 3d 234, reversed.


Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.