WaPo - Overkill: The Latest Trend in Policing

[buzz_knox]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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 doesn’t solved the problem of the militarization of our police force.

 

[LawDog]

Anybody who thinks that today's police are overly-militarized has not studied the history of law enforcement in the United States.

LawDog

 

[Powderman]

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]

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 don’t consider myself paranoid but these action have been ramping and I am concerned and want limits on the police.

 

[Nightcrawler]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Vive' Anarchy! The Libertarian Paradise!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 to the CIA and the military.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

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]

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]

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