WaPo - Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing

[Old Dog]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Sam]

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 .

Sam

 

[Old Dog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Old Dog]

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.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"?