• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Militarization of Police

C

Craig234

Lifer
This is mostly an invitation to discuss. There's a book out on the topic I haven't read yet.

1. How big of a problem do you think it is?

2. How did it happen, when in theory local politicians have oversight of their police departments, if the public is really not in favor of it? How did the political system not work?

3. What should be done now? A US Senator has picked up the issue and hearings will be held, thank goodness.

4. One interesting aspect is the tie-in with the huge number of Afghanistan/Iraq war veterans needing employment and frequently hired as police.

One more unintended consequence of war.
 
Craig234 said:
This is mostly an invitation to discuss. There's a book out on the topic I haven't read yet.

1. How big of a problem do you think it is?

2. How did it happen, when in theory local politicians have oversight of their police departments, if the public is really not in favor of it? How did the political system not work?

3. What should be done now? A US Senator has picked up the issue and hearings will be held, thank goodness.

4. One interesting aspect is the tie-in with the huge number of Afghanistan/Iraq war veterans needing employment and frequently hired as police.

One more unintended consequence of war.
Click to expand...
a necessary consequence to control the buildup in diverse areas where the strong arm of the law will be needed to keep the peace.
 
Craig234 said:
This is mostly an invitation to discuss. There's a book out on the topic I haven't read yet.

1. How big of a problem do you think it is?

2. How did it happen, when in theory local politicians have oversight of their police departments, if the public is really not in favor of it? How did the political system not work?

3. What should be done now? A US Senator has picked up the issue and hearings will be held, thank goodness.

4. One interesting aspect is the tie-in with the huge number of Afghanistan/Iraq war veterans needing employment and frequently hired as police.

One more unintended consequence of war.
Click to expand...

This is a valid discussion because when the cops were outgunned and drugs were the #1 enemy from the 80's and 90's the cops had to change tactics in order to try and stop crime.

Just this morning i remember early 90's or late 80's my hometown police in Minneapolis used a construction tractor to knock down a wall for issuing a warrant in a drug house. I wonder if anyone was hurt by that stunt.

Now we have SWAT team which were supposed to be used only in extreme circumstances used for any warrant where someone is a known gun owner.

Then 10 years later we have 9/11 and we all want to do good and all behavior is suspect. Somehow that allows cops to taser and throw people into jail for sitting on a bench when waiting for their children at daycare.

I think the solution will involve more cameras on police for personal incidents. But for riots and crowds we need the legislature and President to get involved since the police have a lot of rights when crowds become unruly.
 
mizzou said:
http://m.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/pigs-once-again
Click to expand...

That article while suffers from exactly the same problem that they are discussing. I find it interesting that they complain that the media is just going for an unfair emotional approach calling the police bad, pull out some stats to show otherwise and then make their own emotional appeal to the reader to make everyone feel sorry for police officers. If your going to complain about emotional appeals others make, dont go making them yourself.


As far as police militarization, I live north of the US border and it is pretty quiet up here as far as small town police arming up goes. Of course we also have a bit stricter gun control laws which help out in that regard. I would be bothered though if small town police departments where looking into APC's around here but I do think SWAT is a smart and necessary part of policing. There does sometimes seem to be some lack of common sense as to what kind of gear you bring to an arrest, but I think that comes mostly from how members of the public call in complaints. Granted I think the police are at least partly responsible for that, but that is another topic all together.
 
I don't care about militarization of police, insofar as equipment is concerned. I do care about what they do with said equipment. I agree that all police should be filmed at all times while on duty. I think anyone fighting that policy should raise red flags on everyone's radar.
 
Don't understand where the problem lies, if you are in military and you get out and join the police, so what? Will you do different than cops who were not soldiers prior to being cops?

Not sure how in america but in europe, in recent years the police has doubled the city patrols and all units now carry rifles as well. Seems it helped to down the crime abit.
 
Sheep221 said:
Don't understand where the problem lies, if you are in military and you get out and join the police, so what? Will you do different than cops who were not soldiers prior to being cops?
Click to expand...

The short answer, I think, is yes. Someone who left high school to be trained as a soldier and deal with controlling civilian populations in a war zone, and then leaves the military to join a police force, is going to likely have different culture, thinking, experiences, that influence him, and he'll bring a different culture to the police force. Combining that with the military weapons programs, the new homeland security focus brought to police departments, and so on, and it adds up to something not like Mayberry, RFD.

In the US we've long had a tradition of separating the military from the police, including our law of 'posse comitatus' for good reason.
 
It's a mindset, an us vs them mentality. It comes from the belief that they have an enemy that they have to defeat. They expect to have to face a heavily armed opponent so they equip and train for it. Once they have all that hardware, why not use it all the time?
Looking at riots, natural disasters, sports ball championship insanity, and the damage and looting often associated with these events, it's not surprising the police feel the need to gear up. I don't like it, I don't like what it says about our culture, but I can understand the thinking behind it.
 
Craig234 said:
The short answer, I think, is yes. Someone who left high school to be trained as a soldier and deal with controlling civilian populations in a war zone, and then leaves the military to join a police force, is going to likely have different culture, thinking, experiences, that influence him, and he'll bring a different culture to the police force. Combining that with the military weapons programs, the new homeland security focus brought to police departments, and so on, and it adds up to something not like Mayberry, RFD.

In the US we've long had a tradition of separating the military from the police, including our law of 'posse comitatus' for good reason.
Click to expand...
+1
 
I think it speaks more to this sick sense of entitlement that most cops have regarding not being held to the same laws and standards that everyone else is. If cops can't even be trusted with the weapons they have now, who the hell is going to trust them when it comes to weapons that are designed to kill and with mass efficiency.
 
Yeah..I'm pretty tired of hearing about throwing flashbangs into baby cribs and a SWAT raid over 1/2 a dime bag of weed and they kill the guy.It's way outta hand.
 
Craig234 said:
The short answer, I think, is yes. Someone who left high school to be trained as a soldier and deal with controlling civilian populations in a war zone, and then leaves the military to join a police force, is going to likely have different culture, thinking, experiences, that influence him, and he'll bring a different culture to the police force. Combining that with the military weapons programs, the new homeland security focus brought to police departments, and so on, and it adds up to something not like Mayberry, RFD.

In the US we've long had a tradition of separating the military from the police, including our law of 'posse comitatus' for good reason.
Click to expand...


?

Cops are so much more respectful of civil rights now vs. the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. If you can talk to a cop from back in those days, the shit they did would throw you in a whirlwind if you get upset over the actions of cops nowadays.

If you had the real Mayberry cops, it would blow your mind how brutal they were. But back then, people respected them and allowed them to do their jobs. If you got a beat down, people would generally say you deserved it.
 
mizzou said:
?

Cops are so much more respectful of civil rights now vs. the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. If you can talk to a cop from back in those days, the shit they did would throw you in a whirlwind if you get upset over the actions of cops nowadays.

If you had the real Mayberry cops, it would blow your mind how brutal they were. But back then, people respected them and allowed them to do their jobs. If you got a beat down, people would generally say you deserved it.
Click to expand...

You're mixing things up. It'd be like if I compared police to medieval authorities and claimed the comparison is relevant. Those were different times, and things were both worse and better, but they did change, for example especially racism was generally reduced, which was a serious problem earlier.

I user Mayberry to capture one ideal aspect to make a point about American expectations for the police to be less authoritarian.

The relevant comparison is the more recent situation after those improvements, and the ongoing changes toward militarization.

For white Americans at least, the police were generally not that authoritarian earlier. 'To protect and serve' and all that. I know there was an uglier side - I've heard it was a practice to throw child molesters out of high windows, killing them. There were real problems that were improved later. But it wasn't most people's experience. I'm not suggesting a return to problems that have been addressed - but I am raising a new problem of militarization.
 
I am ok with the police starting to be like a military unit.

When you got groups laughing and have joyful tears and glee by punching out white people like in this video: http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us...pkg-police-punch-take-down-man-at-walmart.hln



Then yes you deserve to have those police to be armed with AK-47

But then I am sure they would start crying. WHY WHY! We were all just having a good time knocking you white people out! Why did you have to hurt us?!?!? We did nothing wrong! We did nothing wrong!
 
JEDIYoda said:
don`t you really mean a necessary prelude to a Police state??
Click to expand...

You are implying there is a concerted effort to become a police state instead of it being a natural progression or swing in a pendulum.

dank69 said:
I don't care about militarization of police, insofar as equipment is concerned. I do care about what they do with said equipment. I agree that all police should be filmed at all times while on duty. I think anyone fighting that policy should raise red flags on everyone's radar.
Click to expand...

I agree as well the equipment is not the issue, it's use is. I would rather the police have equipment that collects dust until the zombie apocalypse occurs than need it and not have it.

Sheep221 said:
Don't understand where the problem lies, if you are in military and you get out and join the police, so what? Will you do different than cops who were not soldiers prior to being cops?

Not sure how in america but in europe, in recent years the police has doubled the city patrols and all units now carry rifles as well. Seems it helped to down the crime abit.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced there is a link between military service and police misconduct. Our modern fighting force has to deal with civilians every day and even though the rules of engagement are different they still are a huge factor in military service.
 
inachu said:
I am ok with the police starting to be like a military unit.

When you got groups laughing and have joyful tears and glee by punching out white people like in this video: http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us...pkg-police-punch-take-down-man-at-walmart.hln



Then yes you deserve to have those police to be armed with AK-47

But then I am sure they would start crying. WHY WHY! We were all just having a good time knocking you white people out! Why did you have to hurt us?!?!? We did nothing wrong! We did nothing wrong!
Click to expand...

You come across here as someone with serious racist problems.

That's the real issue. But let's note a couple of specific points you're wrong on.

1. Neither knock-out fights nor anything you can point to justify the militarization of police. Police could be just as effective against 'knock-out' criminals without guns, or with revolvers. Shotguns, rifles, military weapons, automatic weapons, military vehicles, SWAT teams, are all overkill for policing the issue.

Just as some people watch auto racing hoping for exciting crashes, you sound like you hope the police use military hardware against the people you hate so much.

Let's be clear - I hate the (very rare) cases of thuggish actions like you cite. It's mindless, immoral, evil behavior. I want the people who do it caught and punished.

The issue isn't about being for punishing that behavior or not. It's about whether your reaction unleashes your racism and makes you irrational about things like military police.

2. Selectivity of what you're concerned about.

For example, historical discrimination leads to unfair poverty and ongoing unfair situations for black people. Criminal justice, from the police the courts, have things that are unfair to black people, from enforcement actions to sentencing to convictions. For example, studies say African-Americans use illegal drugs at similar rates to white Americans, but they're convicted four times as much. Where is your outrage at all kinds of injustices against black people? I suspect only silence, because racism makes you care only about one side.

That's how the irrationality of racism can affect you - you're not wrong to be angry about the behavior you cited, but you are wrong for it to fuel large race hatred, to weigh it far more than its share of problems in society, to make you an agent of immoral behavior yourself as you support injustice to a group you hate as somehow 'getting even'.

For example, two black men were freed days ago after 30 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. A reasonable reaction to that is to feel sympathy, and anger at the wrong, and to consider how to improve the system to avoid that (But I'll note that Supreme Court Injustice Antonin Scalia cited one of them as justification for the death penalty). But a racist might respond with something like 'well, that makes up for a little bit of the wrong those people do and don't get caught for.'

I see a lot of poisonous racism in your comments just behind them.

This issue of police militarization is nothing like the advancement of Nazism, but your thinking has something in common - it shows how such poisonous hate can make the hater blind to being used for the increase in state power when that power is used to oppress an enemy they hate - Jews in Germany (with others), or blacks in this case.

The hate blinds you to issues of justice. It warps your sense of proportion, and causes you to want bad things for innocent people. Making you as bad or worse than the thugs. Not in intent - you don't think you want innocent people hurt - but in result. When the problem of police militarization you want hurts innocents, and it does, you're not on the right side of the issue, you're demanding more to happen.

There's a pretty strong connection between fear and hate in the public and the support for authoritarianism to 'protect them'.

Remember the old saying that citizens who give up essential liberties for a little more safety deserve neither? You're being that citizen.

One last point - you don't realize you're being counter-productive. You say you hate that sort of thuggish behavior - but there's a cycle between the hate between groups. Every time you support bad things for that group, it encourages them to support bad things for you, in a cycle. You aren't offering a way out of that cycle, only a continuation. In other words, the very sort of race hate you seem to have fuels the sort of hateful behavior in that video.

A way to reduce that sort of mindless violence is for those thugs to better have a sense of morality and concern for fellow human beings. What else is going to help, given you aren't going to have police every ten feet preventing it? But the very things they're lacking, you're lacking. It comes out differently - you aren't about to go punch black people for mindless expression of rage - but they aren't about to oppress you the way they're treated unfairly.

You're helping to cause the problem you say you hate, you're part of the cycle of hate.

I'm not saying the thuggish behavior is directly some sort of racial revenge, but the sort of racism you suggest fuels the hate that makes that sort of thing more likely.

You can both hate the evil behavior the thugs in the video do, and stop hating black people and want more justice for them. That's going to reduce the hate causing violence.

It won't be eliminated - we don't have a cure for mindless thuggishness by any group - but it'll reduce the hate and violence. And those are clear issues - even among some police forces, seen as we heard about the Lieutenant in the Ferguson police force in recent years who basically ordered the force to target black people for arrest. Perhaps the video you link motivated his feeling that was a good idea. It wasn't.

Where did the solution for Nazi persecution of Jews (and others) lie? Did it lie in the Jews stopping whatever behaviors they did that angered the other Germans? No. It could have lied in the German people reducing their hatred and desire for persecution. But since they didn't make that choice, the only solution ended up being the German defeat by foreign forces that happened to also end their persecution of others.

It's the same with all kinds of hate. How many cases have their been with people physically attacking gay people, simply because they're bigoted? Doesn't the attack of a straight mob on a gay person look a lot like the video you're so upset about? But do you react with the same amount of anger at the attackers? People didn't in the past.

Your approach ends up with groups hatefully wanting to hurt each other, each feeling justified because of acts they can point to by the other group.

The militarization of police doesn't help with the situation - it just causes more problems.

We got through the riots of the late 1960's without militarized police in the US. We can get through some thuggish acts without militarized police also. Just as then, there are resources that can be called in as needed, such as the national guard. When SWAT teams are now used exponentially more for activities they're not needed for, and only 7% of their use is for what they're designed for, it's an excess. And it does reduce the freedom safety of all Americans to have that change.
 
JimKiler said:
You are implying there is a concerted effort to become a police state instead of it being a natural progression or swing in a pendulum.
Click to expand...

I think that's a wrong metaphor of a pendulum. It pretends there's some natural and inevitable change to militarization that we should just view as no problem.

That's not the case.

Imagine a husband telling his wife that his having an affair is just a swing (no pun intended) in the pendulum of marriage - nothing to be concerned about.

Well, no it's not, it's a change that doesn't need to happen. Infidelity happens in some marriages, but it's not some 'pendulum in marriage' that has to happen.

I agree with you in part, that there doesn't have to be some intent and agenda for militarizing police, as part of some authoritarian plot. Changes are often 'unintended'.

As I mentioned, take things like our having wars that give us a workforce filled with military vets for police jobs, take the program where the government decides instead of destroying military equipment from those wars to 'not waste it' by giving it to the police where presumably they'll use it appropriately - no intent for a move to a police state there, but those things have brought a great change anyway. And the situation is not a 'pendulum'.

It's a change in culture and practices, and a violation of the culture many Americans want of a less militarized police force leaving them feeling safer in their freedoms.

I agree as well the equipment is not the issue, it's use is. I would rather the police have equipment that collects dust until the zombie apocalypse occurs than need it and not have it.
Click to expand...

The equipment fuels thinking and culture. It'd be nice if the two choices you give are the two that happen - either weapons for the zombies, or harmlessly unused - but neither is what actually happens. Rather, the equipment changes the police in ways many Americans do not like.

Imagine if every time you had a conflict with a neighbor and met to talk about it, they came with a shotgun while you're unarmed. It's 'just in case', and technically doesn't need to affect the discussion - they didn't shoot you. But will it have any effect on the situation? There's a good chance it will. The equipment does have an effect, as one factor.

Police in a military vehicle with military weapons aren't 'just the same' as police in a patrol car with a handgun.

I am not convinced there is a link between military service and police misconduct. Our modern fighting force has to deal with civilians every day and even though the rules of engagement are different they still are a huge factor in military service.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't simply 'misconduct'. It's the difference between dealing with a more lightly armed, friendlier officer versus facing down a SWAT team for a small matter as well.

There are a lot of effects of the militarized police force that aren't 'misconduct'.
 
In the case of teen mobs to beat up white people and laugh about it on leaked video as if there is nothing wrong with it then yes military police use is justified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top