ADVERTISEMENT

John Stossel on the Militarization of Police Forces....

noble cane

noble cane

I.T.S. University President
Feb 25, 2002
9,332
3,050
113
I apologize in advance to WATU for the FOX News article... But Stossel quotes Bill Maher.. and that makes it OK.. Right?!?!????


Watching the activities in Ferguson, MO has me wondering if this is what the Princeps meant about a "a Domestic, Civilian force just as strong and well equipped as our nations military..."




Government always grows and govt is Force.
 
The military has given a ton of equipment to local law enforcement over the last few years. Homeland Security has purchased an additional amount of guns, ammo and armored fighting vehicles. Local law enforcement now defaults to using SWAT teams for searching homes. I find the whole process to be disconcerting.

The pictures of AFVs with M240-Bs mounted on their roofs doing "crowd control" in Missouri remind me of stuff you would have seen in Warsaw Pact countries during the time of the Soviet Union. Not something I ever thought I'd see here and certainly not something I expected to see on the watch of a "constitutional expert" like our current POTUS. Of course, since the last Dem administration gave us Waco, not sure they are all that opposed to the "jack booted thug" approach to law enforcement.

One big change over the last 10 - 12 years has been in the attitude of the guys I know in law enforcement. For a long time they took the "to protect and serve" concept to heart. Now it is more like "whatever it takes to get home safely after your shift is over". While I understand the shift in attitude I really don't like it.

Thanks!
 
I recently discussed the present state of law enforcement with a retired policeman who'd been on the OKC force for 3 decades. I asked him the same question I have to other officers and got the same answer: "Have you ever 'in those 30 years', stopped an attempted murder - in progress?" Answer, is always no. There just isn't the opportunity to do that. A cop is seldom if ever at the scene of a shooting or execution style murder in progress. The shooters are long gone by the time the cops arrive. That stuff is just in the movies. We can't afford the number of police it would take to have a cop on every corner or in every neighborhood. Not feasable.

So in my thinking its inevitably up to each of us to protect ourselves where possible and especially where we are most vulnerable - in our homes or businesses. Quik Trip got caught in the middle of a 60's style urban war. Reminiscent of LA a few years ago. "Can't we all just get along?"
 
There was a report on local tv about two Fort Worth Police officers that were injured On-Duty performing routine activities. Both are receiving some disability assistance from the city but it doesnt cover the total cost of care, much less any compensation for the debilitating injury.

The police need to have the best equipment available.

. . . .
maybe if you dont fight with a policeman for his gun, you wont get shot!
 
Local police forces were given half a billion dollars in military equipment last year by the Feds.
 
If something like the incident in Missouri occurred here and the police were so preoccupied with crowd control or helping put out fires etc, would you want to live next door to an unarmed Bonney Fwank type or next door to me? Just a simple question.
wink.r191677.gif
 
Best equipment is a function of the situation and application. Military weapons and equipment are not designed for law enforcement (just like military personnel aren't trained for law enforcement or crowd control .... one big fallacy with the "bring in the National Guard" solution to urban unrest).

A typical 5.56 bullet used in the military will pass complete through at least one person/body and into a second (they are designed to penetrate body armor and use a tungsten tip). Conversely a civilian 5.56 round will often come with a hollow point ... does more damage to the initial target but dumps the kinetic energy more rapidly.

The medium machine guns you see on the top of the MRAAPs (armored vehicles) are designed for specific use in combat. Primarily they are intended to be squad level weapons for use in a "fire and maneuver" small unit technique (developed by the Germans, use machine gun to pin the enemy while you maneuver around their flanks). They are also used against light vehicles and structures. Please tell me just what application they have in urban crowd control?

I have no issue with providing police with equipment appropriate to the task at hand. I have a big issue providing them with equipment that is designed for the battlefield, has limited to no applicability in law enforcement scenarios and with which they are poorly trained.

With regard to neighbors, unless mine happens to be well trained and practiced with his or her weapons, I would prefer to live next to the Barney Frank type. Nothing more frightening that a soccer dad with a loaded 9mm and no idea how to use it.

Thanks!
 
I agree with Old Goat. As one of the generals once said the military is good at what they do: Breaking things and killing people.

Police are supposed to be good at enforcing the law and protecting people. In the military, regardless of good intentions, you don't have a situation or the equipment that always allows you to limit collateral damage.
 
+1 Well said.
Originally posted by old_goat_23:
The military has given a ton of equipment to local law enforcement over the last few years. Homeland Security has purchased an additional amount of guns, ammo and armored fighting vehicles. Local law enforcement now defaults to using SWAT teams for searching homes. I find the whole process to be disconcerting.

The pictures of AFVs with M240-Bs mounted on their roofs doing "crowd control" in Missouri remind me of stuff you would have seen in Warsaw Pact countries during the time of the Soviet Union. Not something I ever thought I'd see here and certainly not something I expected to see on the watch of a "constitutional expert" like our current POTUS. Of course, since the last Dem administration gave us Waco, not sure they are all that opposed to the "jack booted thug" approach to law enforcement.

One big change over the last 10 - 12 years has been in the attitude of the guys I know in law enforcement. For a long time they took the "to protect and serve" concept to heart. Now it is more like "whatever it takes to get home safely after your shift is over". While I understand the shift in attitude I really don't like it.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
I think the people in Ferguson, MO turned it into a war zone when they decided to riot and burn.

Protests and demonstrations are a completly different thing.
 
Originally posted by aTUfan:

I think the people in Ferguson, MO turned it into a war zone when they decided to riot and burn.

Protests and demonstrations are a completly different thing.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly against what's going on in Ferguson, but let's not be silly. It's not a war zone. People always throw phrases around. If it was a war zone we would bring bombers in and bomb the place. We need a strong response, but if you think it is a war zone, go to a real war then come back and tell us if you still feel the same way.
This post was edited on 8/17 6:45 AM by TUMe
 
Protests and demonstrations are fine

but riots, looting and burning cannot be tolerated no matter how pissed off the people are.
Who' is going to pay to rebiuld the businesses that they have distroyed? The rioter?
 
Originally posted by aTUfan:

Protests and demonstrations are fine

but riots, looting and burning cannot be tolerated no matter how pissed off the people are.
Who' is going to pay to rebiuld the businesses that they have distroyed? The rioter?
Click to expand...
Agree. The point of this thread is that police don't need some of the very heavy equipment that the federal government has been giving them. Some too big to maneuver in city streets. Some has never been used. The feds are just transferring equipment to the cities and states that they will never use and getting it off of their books while claiming to have made a contribution to local law enforcement.
 
I have nothing against a police force "having" this kind of firepower in the backroom and the ability and training to use it if "absolutley" necessary. But the key word is "necessary". With so many threats out there from drug cartel members to Boston Marathon style terrorists, they may occasionally need that gear.

I also don't know what kind of place Ferguson, Mo is, but they obviously have a crime problem there. If the crime problem is as bad as its portrayed on TV, then the citizens of Ferguson should embrace the second amendment instead of a military style police force.

But the question always comes to my mind - Is the extra military-style firepower there to protect the citizens or the cops? If its the latter, then that community has a problem far greater than the police officers who serve them.

IMO
 
Originally posted by TUMe:


The feds are just transferring equipment to the cities and states that they will never use and getting it off of their books while claiming to have made a contribution to local law enforcement.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If only it were that innocent...

This is more of a "quiet staging" or something just short of the "quartering of troops" mentioned in the constitution and declaration of independence...

This equipment is about control and intimidation... Domestic law enforcement should never be militarized.. it defeats the checks that the framers placed on domestic use of military forces...

We have known militarized police by other names in history.. Gestapo, Stazi, SS, etc...




This post was edited on 8/18 3:11 PM by noble cane
 
Originally posted by BanditBacker:

If we are not supposed to call Ferguson, Mo. a War Zone, what do we call it?
Click to expand...
How about a riot or lawlessness or burglary or mob violence. I suggested that you go to a real war for the answer to that question. Go to Gaza and see a small war for yourself. Read about WWII where 370,000 American military died along with millions of civilians. Vietnam was a mid-sized war where 58,000 Americans died. What's happening in Missouri is uncalled for and awful. It should be stopped but using words like war zone is a bit over the top.
 
For TUME; Amen! This isn't even a really good riot let alone a war
zone. I have absolutely NO idea how to deal with civil unrest at this
level but AFVs aren't an answer. If the protesters break out a bunch of AKs and RPGs we can reconsider.

For Noble; The Stasi and others
really didn't have a paramilitary arm (the KGB did). However, the Stasi
and Bulgarian DS were truly evil incarnations of secret police. The
KGB used the Stasi for stuff they didn't want to do. If it was too
nasty for Stasi then the Bulgarians got the job. Very bad people but no
armored vehicles. Those countries didn't have any equivalent to our Posse Comitatus so they could just call in the local army unit if things got ugly.

For Rabid; I have to assume that the military equipment is for "joint" operations with Federal Law Enforcement or National Guard. So, not for protection of either people or police. More likely for those times when a batch of terrorists hold up in Ferguson for whatever reason. In general (and we can talk about this for days), there is no situation in which that level of equipment can be used effectively in a urban area outside of a true combat zone. For our purposes, "combat zone" means an area in which collateral damage (both to structures and people) is an acceptable outcome of operations. By using the AFVs or military grade weapons, the police put civilians at great risk (over penetration, bouncers, whatever) than without them.

One other consideration. We have briefly discussed the equipment and training differences between "soldiers" and "police". Suffice it to say that the two really don't go well together. However, for most police departments, the tactical units (K-9, EOD, Dive, SWAT, etc.) are primarily staffed with veterans who have military training in specific areas. One thing that police departments have to do is re-train those guys to change the mindset from "soldier" to "policeman". Putting them back in military equipment and with military grade weapons has the potential to cause a lot of mental confusion ..... which can lead to some bad reactions and outcomes. Not a criticism of the police or the vets who choose to serve twice .... just a consideration if you take some guy who did 4 tours in Afghanistan and then put him on an M240B in a riot. Bad things can happen.

Thanks!
 
Originally posted by old_goat_23:


One other consideration. We have briefly discussed the equipment and training differences between "soldiers" and "police". Suffice it to say that the two really don't go well together. However, for most police departments, the tactical units (K-9, EOD, Dive, SWAT, etc.) are primarily staffed with veterans who have military training in specific areas. One thing that police departments have to do is re-train those guys to change the mindset from "soldier" to "policeman". Putting them back in military equipment and with military grade weapons has the potential to cause a lot of mental confusion ..... which can lead to some bad reactions and outcomes. Not a criticism of the police or the vets who choose to serve twice .... just a consideration if you take some guy who did 4 tours in Afghanistan and then put him on an M240B in a riot. Bad things can happen.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Appreciate your clarification.. I was off on the group names... but the thinking was on target (I think)..

Agree with your post about battle hardened vets becoming cops.. I shoot a lot of three gun competitions and some of my teammates from time to time are multi theatre vets turned LEO's... they enter another world and become quite efficiently scary good when the timer starts..





This post was edited on 8/18 4:04 PM by noble cane
 
Who would want to be a Police Officer in todays environment. Every move you make is analyzed and over analyzed.

Arm chair QBs attempt to evaluate a situation when the Police Officer may have only seconds to react to what could have been a live threating situation for him.
 
I look at riots in the context of the way they were in the 60's and a few instances since that time in our larger cities. Rioting in the 60's seemed every bit as intense and life threatening as a small war zone (wo the artillery). Our college campuses even became war zones with the obvious example of Kent St. But that "was" after sending in the Natl Guard - 4 dead students. Many examples of "battles" in the streets, campuses and cities in them thar days.

TBH, I'd actually rather see the city police handle these kinds of problems than the Natl Guard since those guardsmen aren't full timers and probably haven't had the kind of training required.

IMO
 
I would never question the reaction of a LEO until all the facts are in .... and even then I'd be reluctant. That is a tough job and no matter what you do a law suit is probably going to follow. Nothing I've written is intended to criticize the police .... just the equipment provided.

On another topic ......... I've laughed a lot at the outrage shown over the number of rounds fired (6 - 8) since that is EXACTLY the methodology taught when confronting an advancing adversary with a handgun. Shoot them until they either stay down or you have to reload. Aim center mass to stop them then put a round in the head.

Noble, very easy to get confused over which Soviet/Warsaw Pact countries had paramilitary police forces. The Russians had several active paramilitary units (including KGB, GRU and Border Guards). This was primarily a function of the geographic dispersion of Russia and the lack of effective infrastructure for moving units from one area to another. The army was mostly around Moscow and "forward deployed". Their Marine unit (Black Sea Marines) were in Georgia and Crimea with the Black Sea Squadron. The KGB had paramilitary units in or around most major cities. KGB also had special operations units that were air mobile if the local guys got into trouble. The GRU (Military Intelligence) also had paramilitary and special operations forces for us with internal issues.

An additional component of the Soviet "division of labor" vis a vis internal paramilitary forces was intended to have multiple forces that could counter one another in the event of a coup or rebellion. The KGB could defend Moscow against army units. The GRU could defend Moscow and various installations against the KGB or army. The Black Sea Marines could defend the Black Sea Squadron against both internal and external threats. Russians are and were extremely paranoid plus it kept a lot of people employed.

Hope this helps and thanks!
 
Oklahoma Gov's point of view

Tone Deaf OK Gov. Fallin Touts Militarization of Police
4 days ago | by Josh Dieker
Twitter
Ferguson, Missouri provide a tragic picture of what happens when law enforcement agencies forget that their mission is to "serve and protect" rather than "abuse and oppress." Many across the country are taking a look at the images and the stories coming out of Missouri and finally asking, does the local PD really need armored combat vehicles? Do they really need weapons of war to protect suburban American cities and towns?
But not everyone is doing that kind of introspection. No indeed, Governor Mary Fallin, (R-OK) yesterday issued a press release touting the restoration of a Department of Defense program that transfers surplus military equipment to local, municipal organizations. In other words just as the nation's grownups are re-thinking putting military hardware in our city streets, Governor Fallin is jumping up and down shouting, "YAY! MOAR TANKS!"
Fortunately, Fallin may be an outlier in this national conversation. Even in her own party, there are voices of reason calling for the de-militarization of the police. Staunch conservative Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) published an Op-Ed for Time[/I] this week pointing out that as a conservative it is his belief that the police should never be allowed to become the judge and the jury....
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view


You're not going to find many Governors turning down "free equipment" from the Feds. I've long said how dissappointed I am in the actions of our federal government as it relates to civil rights post 9-11....and yet so few seem to care. Now state governments are getting involved with help from the Feds.
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view

Originally posted by WATU2:

Tone Deaf OK Gov. Fallin Touts Militarization of Police

4 days ago | by Josh Dieker



Twitter
Ferguson, Missouri provide a tragic picture of what happens when law enforcement agencies forget that their mission is to "serve and protect" rather than "abuse and oppress." Many across the country are taking a look at the images and the stories coming out of Missouri and finally asking, does the local PD really need armored combat vehicles? Do they really need weapons of war to protect suburban American cities and towns?

But not everyone is doing that kind of introspection. No indeed, Governor Mary Fallin, (R-OK) yesterday issued a press release touting the restoration of a Department of Defense program that transfers surplus military equipment to local, municipal organizations. In other words just as the nation's grownups are re-thinking putting military hardware in our city streets, Governor Fallin is jumping up and down shouting, "YAY! MOAR TANKS!"

Fortunately, Fallin may be an outlier in this national conversation. Even in her own party, there are voices of reason calling for the de-militarization of the police. Staunch conservative Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) published an Op-Ed for Time[/I] this week pointing out that as a conservative it is his belief that the police should never be allowed to become the judge and the jury....
Click to expand...
Rand Paul is a "staunch" conservative? Lieberal Alert! Lieberal Alert! Lieberal Alert!
flush.r191677.gif
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view

Not sure how we got from a reasonable conversation to this ditty by a
clueless liberal like Josh Dieker ..... but ... whatever. I suppose it
said "Fallin" and was too good to pass up?

One
big issue I have with the press (and a ton of others) is that they
don't know the difference between a "tank", "armored fighting vehicle"
and "armored car". Calling an unarmed armored car (pictured) a tank
(big armored thing with treads and a huge freakin' gun) is just dumb,
costs the author any credibility and
adds to the confusion/misconceptions already rampant in the subject
matter (militarization of law enforcement). Pretty sure that they
aren't giving any M1-A1s to local law enforcement. OK, real sure.

Another
big issue I have is when the aforementioned and demonstrably clueless
writer drops the "abuse and oppress" mantra with regard to law
enforcement. While I readily admit that there is a dangerous attitude shift
(brought in part by the weapons borne by the "oppressed"), I really don't
know any law enforcement types who are into either abuse or
oppression. Have we gone too far away from "protect and serve"? Yes. Have we gotten to "abuse and oppress". Absolutely not.

Finally, Herr
Dieker should keep in mind (or perhaps do some research into the
subject matter so he actually has facts to "keep in mind") that the
keystone of the unrestricted program to transfer military equipment was
the the "1033 act", a brainchild of the Clinton administration in 1999. Before that time transfers were limited to law enforcement agencies confronted with a specific set of "counter drug
activities" Additionally, we should all note that the people who have
really ramped the 1033 program up work for the current Commander in Chief. The bulk
($2.2 billion of a total of $2.6 billion as of FY 2012) of military
equipment has been transferred since 2010.

Thus endeth the rant. Thanks.
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view

The last few years in Afghanistan have been largely police operations. Almost entirely presence patrols and a very restrictive ROE(basically can only defend yourself), so there is really not much difference between what I do now and police officers have been historically asked to do. And honestly, if I were going into a situation like Ferguson has been for the last several days, I wouldn't mind a lot of body armor and some heavy weapons for a show of force. I also kind of resent the idea that somehow the type of equipment I have would somehow confuse me as to what my mission is. Combat vets aren't idiots ready to fly off the handle. In fact, they're probably the ones least likely to use deadly force unnecessarily, because 99% of weapons training is about safety, restraint, and escalation of force.
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view

Originally posted by URedskin54:
I wouldn't mind a lot of body armor and some heavy weapons for a show of force.
Click to expand...
This is how "to protect and to serve" becomes "to suppress and subjugate"
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view

When businesses are being burned down "protecting and serving" might be best served by suppressing the force that is inflicting the damage. If I were a business owner trying to defend my property with just my weapon, I don't think I'd mind seeing the police show up in an armored vehicle. I don't have a problem with police departments having this kind of equipment and using it as long as it gets used properly(ie situations where there is an unusually high risk to the lives of the officers).

This post was edited on 8/21 12:39 PM by URedskin54
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view

If those were accurate I suppose I would offer a response, but they're not.
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view


This is interesting because what we are seeing here is a division among conservatives, of which I are one. Both sides have a point.

Side 1 says give the police what they need to do the job. We can't let them be out gunned.

Side 2 thinks, as stressed in the Bill of Right, that the government should not have an Army among us which could get too controlling of citizens.

My own feeling is that there is a balanced that has to be watched both ways. You don't need armor piercing bullets for crowd control but you don't want to have the Border Patrol out gunned at the border. Sadly, our government seems to have largely moved enforcement to check points on Interstate 10.
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view


Bingo!

IMO a city or state has to make those decisions according to the individual problems they see. If there is a high crime rate and murder rate, they may need to become more of a strike force. If the crimes are generally minor in nature with a cooperative citizenry, then less firepower should be required. As always, I think the local folks should decide what kind of community and police protection they need. But the people in every communiity should be "eternally vigilant" as the saying goes.

One thing I'd like to point out is that drug cartels are very well armed. They have owned military style aircraft, tank-like vehicles and at one time even a surplus submarine. Not every city/state deals with that, but all need to have some ability to "combat" that kind of firepower ---- if needed. But no, I don't want our own local police forces harrassing and intimidating the folks they work for. There needs to be a balance - but the bad guys shouldn't have the advantage.

I guess I are one too!
glasses.r191677.gif



Originally posted by TUMe:

This is interesting because what we are seeing here is a division among conservatives, of which I are one. Both sides have a point.

Side 1 says give the police what they need to do the job. We can't let them be out gunned.

Side 2 thinks, as stressed in the Bill of Right, that the government should not have an Army among us which could get too controlling of citizens.

My own feeling is that there is a balanced that has to be watched both ways. You don't need armor piercing bullets for crowd control but you don't want to have the Border Patrol out gunned at the border. Sadly, our government seems to have largely moved enforcement to check points on Interstate 10.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Oklahoma Gov's point of view

Originally posted by TUMe:

.

Side 1 says give the police what they need to do the job. We can't let them be out gunned.
Click to expand...
As long as an average citizen is allowed to be armed as well as the police then arm them up...

once the police become armed better than the average citizen then they become oppressors and subjugators...they become a domestic army.



This post was edited on 8/22 12:44 PM by noble cane
 
While I cannot speak to the Tulsa Police's firepower, I've usually been pretty impressed with their professionalism whenever I've had to deal with them. They've always been alot more patient with my back-talk, sass, and flippant remarks than you might expect them to be.
 
Originally posted by BanditBacker:
While I cannot speak to the Tulsa Police's firepower, I've usually been pretty impressed with their professionalism whenever I've had to deal with them. They've always been alot more patient with my back-talk, sass, and flippant remarks than you might expect them to be.
Click to expand...
Have you been giving them a lot of your business? If you are a regular customer they, no doubt, need to keep you coming back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back