• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why do Ferguson’s police officers look like soldiers?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. - Barack Obama

Many of you voted for this - twice. And given the opportunity, I'm sure you'd vote for it again.
^ This



Let me guess, you actually think it would be different under a McCain or Romney Presidency. This was already taking place under Bush's Presidency.
But wasn't he going to be different and promised 'change'? McCain or Romney everyone would expect this. The left was always protesting against this kind of behavior, yet when in charge, they just doubled down on it.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,404
851
126
You didn't need to go to all that trouble. I understand all that. My point, for the last time is that Obama continued the policies and told us he was going to do so. The original question in the thread title is why do police officers look like soldiers. We don't have a president that told us he was going to cease these practices, we have one that told us he was going to intensify them.

The Reagan and Bush presidencies are over. We can't change what they put in place. Our current president continued and intensified the policies and he is still in office. Criticism of him has relevancy. It has the potential to bring about a change in the policy. Reagan can't change anything and neither can Bush.

If there is blame to be assessed it must be directed towards those that can affect a change. Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA. Can he rescind it? No. But who could? If the public wanted NAFTA rescinded, would the nation turn towards Clinton to do that? Continuance of a policy or policies by whomever holds an office is not excused because their predecessor's did it. That's a grade school mode of thinking that has gripped our nation far too tightly.
Yeah because our community organizer of a president just envisioned community police being militarized.

It doesn't do anyone any good when you don't put thought to reason. We don't have a dictator. We live in a country represented by two parties. One party moving closer and closer to crazy and what that does it pushes the mainstream to the right. Hence, where we have little towns in nowhere using military grade equipment to police their streets as if it were Baghdad.

You clearly didn't take that second to review which voices were in opposition to this. When you do, it's usually those that don't favor a policy that are in opposition to it, just in case you need that cleared up.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,404
851
126
But wasn't he going to be different and promised 'change'? McCain or Romney everyone would expect this. The left was always protesting against this kind of behavior, yet when in charge, they just doubled down on it.
So, you are mad at Obama for not changing policies the guys you have voted for established and would have continued to establish.

... Mind Blown.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Why do Ferguson’s police officers look like soldiers?
Because they are looking out for their own safety and security. They don't want to get injured when trying to deal with an angry mob. The last thing they want is to die on the job.
 
Last edited:

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,871
255
126
Because they are looking out for their own safety and security. They don't want to get injured when trying to deal with an angry mob. The last thing they want is to die on the job.
It can been argued that by escalating the situation, they actually put themselves at greater risk.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
It can been argued that by escalating the situation, they actually put themselves at greater risk.
Anything can be argued.

Can you prove that their lives are safer not inside the protection of an armored vehicle?

And, can you prove that their meetings each morning involved planning how to intentionally escalate the situation?

And remember, they are making predictions on possible future events, while you have the luxury of arguing a situation after the fact.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
(My repost)

This should be a wakeup call to all those American's that ask if a peoples revolution in general is near? Or should happen?
That revolution between American citizen and the US government.
That revolution where so many American's feel the need to own guns, a lot of guns, a lot of big guns, with this illusion that some revolution could in any way succeed. haha
From this episode happening in MO, we clearly see the power of the local police department.
And most every major US city now has this very same tactical assault weaponry.
So American revolutionary man and woman, this is what you would be up against.
You, with guns and maybe your assault weapons, and them with weaponry of mass destruction.
Doesn't look too good. Hey?
Anyone care to bet odds on the winner or the outcome?

So, owning all those guns and assault weapons, the general public, really boils down to not that much of a big deal after all.
So much for that American revolution rising up against the US government.

And the armored vehicles are just the beginning.
Who knows what other weaponry of mass destruction our local police department might have at their disposal?
All those weapons. Tactical assault weaponry.
And you with your hand gun(s).
Do you have brain damage?
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
It's quite simple. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. If you were tasked with being present in a mob riot where there are angry people willing to commit violence, and you are the primary target...

Personally I'm not stepping out on the streets until I grabbed every last piece of armor I can do wrap myself with.


If any of you say you would personally enter into the same situation with no armor and no weapons, you are lying to yourself.

You may argue "should" police officers look like soldiers. But there is no debate at all on the question of "why" police officers look like soldiers.
 

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
8
76
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. - Barack Obama

Many of you voted for this - twice. And given the opportunity, I'm sure you'd vote for it again.
Obama, July 2, Colorado Springs, CO: [As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/
Foreign service is definitely a code name for saint louis county sheriff department. You just gotta read between the lines. Like stewox does.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. - Barack Obama

Many of you voted for this - twice. And given the opportunity, I'm sure you'd vote for it again.
He was talking about expanding the Peace Corps and Americorps, not militarized police forces. Here, let's take a look at the entire speech in context:

[As] president I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots [from 75,000] and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals, like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their effort connected to a common purpose.

People of all ages, stations and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer. So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an energy corps, to conduct renewable energy and environmental clean-up projects in their neighborhoods all across the country.

We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where American can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment and skill sets. You’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda and make their own change from the bottom up.
No one reading the entirety of that would assume that Obama meant "militarize the police."

-EDIT- BEATEN BY THEB! DAMN YOU!
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
9,975
4,000
136
Anything can be argued.

Can you prove that their lives are safer not inside the protection of an armored vehicle?

And, can you prove that their meetings each morning involved planning how to intentionally escalate the situation?

And remember, they are making predictions on possible future events, while you have the luxury of arguing a situation after the fact.
You're right shooting tear gas are people on their own lawns didn't escalate anything.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
9
81
You're right shooting tear gas are people on their own lawns didn't escalate anything.
Shooting tear gas at journalists didn't either:



That's nothing more than a "fuck you and your rights, we're the police, we're in charge, we're badass". It's something very, very wrong with this country right now.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,568
2
0
It's quite simple. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. If you were tasked with being present in a mob riot where there are angry people willing to commit violence, and you are the primary target...

Personally I'm not stepping out on the streets until I grabbed every last piece of armor I can do wrap myself with.


If any of you say you would personally enter into the same situation with no armor and no weapons, you are lying to yourself.

You may argue "should" police officers look like soldiers. But there is no debate at all on the question of "why" police officers look like soldiers.
The issue arises when you have soldiers commenting that they didn't wear that much gear in Afghanistan.

I'm not opposed to police in Riot Gear or being armed, but what purpose does outfitting riot cops with M4s serve? Are they going to start letting off volleys? How do they plan to use those rifles?

Having specialized tactical teams is one thing. Having an entirely tactical police force is another. If things get bad enough to warrant military style measures and martial law, you call in the national guard.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
79,374
12,217
126
Actually, assloads of cops HAVE entered tense situations without military grade armor and weapons. They've BEEN doing that for hundreds of years.

Only since 9/11 has there been a notion that regular police can or should use military equipment. (In America)

SWAT is never called out unless there's an actual emergency which they are specifically able to take care of.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
79,374
12,217
126
Nixon didnt call in the police. He called in the freakin National Guard, and look at what the hell happened!
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Actually, assloads of cops HAVE entered tense situations without military grade armor and weapons. They've BEEN doing that for hundreds of years.

Only since 9/11 has there been a notion that regular police can or should use military equipment. (In America)

SWAT is never called out unless there's an actual emergency which they are specifically able to take care of.
Gunpowder was invented sometime around 1000ad.

Kevlar was invented in 1970, the first practical body armor for individuals.

Of course cops did not wear armor for hundreds of years. Because practical body armor was not available. Not even the military had personal body armor that both protected against bullets and allowed great mobility.

In other words, statistics between 1000ad and the 1970's do not factor in to the argument.

Oh, and police forces of the past used brutality much, much more than today to enforce their authority. Many also were on the payrolls of criminal organizations in the past.

We just didn't have live 24-hour news channels to spread the word.
 
Last edited:

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,667
136
This is a pretty cool interactive map - and sad

"Mapping the Spread of the Military’s Surplus Gear"

State and local police departments obtain some of their military-style equipment through a free Defense Department program created in the early 1990s. While the portion of their gear coming from the program is relatively small (most of it is paid for through department budgets and federal grants), detailed data from the Pentagon illustrates how ubiquitous such equipment has become. Highlighted counties have received guns, grenade launchers, vehicles, night vision or body armor through the program since 2006."


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=0
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
No one reading the entirety of that would assume that Obama meant "militarize the police."
Your point has been argued here countless times before and I completely discount it. The facts indicate without question that the police are militarized. Londo_Jowo spent some time earlier pointing out that the militarization started under Reagan and continued. If the proclivities of the current administration did not mesh with police militarization, it would not have happened. Armaments of the nature that current police departments possess do not willy-nilly end up in their possession. There is a process that must be followed. I've made the same point numerous times in this thread already. The current administration, under the leadership of Barack Obama, continued the process of arming our police departments with military equipment. If he didn't want it to happen, he would have stopped it.

What do we have to back up his actions? We have his words. The interpretation you subscribe to does not match reality.

You'd do better to cease defending Obama and ask yourself why has this escalation continued through so many administrations of both parties? That's what's important. Your freedoms are being eroded at an ever increasing pace. The day may come when you are relieved of most or all of them. I can guarantee you that there will be a politician of some party running the country at that time. Capeesh?
 

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,008
242
106
The issue arises when you have soldiers commenting that they didn't wear that much gear in Afghanistan.

I'm not opposed to police in Riot Gear or being armed, but what purpose does outfitting riot cops with M4s serve? Are they going to start letting off volleys? How do they plan to use those rifles?

Having specialized tactical teams is one thing. Having an entirely tactical police force is another. If things get bad enough to warrant military style measures and martial law, you call in the national guard.
Americans have better weapons than terrorists
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS