Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Militarization of the police in the United States

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Monash View Post
    A statement totally unsupported by the evidence. If the USA had no effective law enforcement "system" then the streets of the average American city or town would more closely resemble those of Mogadishu or Karachi rather than London or Berlin. For the most part the law and order system in the US works as well and perhaps in some ways better than many other Western Nations. Its officers reflect the society they live in that they are generally well educated, well supported by modern technology and subject to the rule of law. Crime figures in the US as in many parts of the Western World are trending down, partly due to economic and social factors but also because of better/smarter law enforcement.

    My point has always has been that the faults of a minority (in any profession) cannot be used as a justification to demean the rest of that profession, any more than the faults of a few should dam any particular race, nation or religion.

    All except line dancers that is, they should all be taken out and shot. :whome:
    Half of all intentional shootings by police involve dogs. This is not a minority issue, it's a policy issue. Shooting dogs upon entry is SOP for SWAT. This is not a few bad apples issue, it's a policy issue. Using SWAT more and more for things like administrative searches and busting up the neighborhood poker game in full tactical gear is not an issue about the misdeeds of a few, it's a policy issue. Holding nobody responsible for showing up to the wrong house unannounced and blowing away your dog in it's own house or yard is a policy issue. Raiding a bar in full tactical gear and detaining and searching everyone there under the guise of an administrative search to get around the lack of a warrant is a policy issue.

    We're not talking about the faults of a minority. We're talking about a system that allows for these things to happen, defends it, and in some cases encourages it.
    Last edited by Wooglin; 12 Aug 13,, 18:42.

    Comment


    • Given the sheer number of complaints both official and unofficial (social media filming for example) we may be talking as high as 10% of uniformed law enforcement being dirty. The US has seen an entire metro area police departments taken over by the federal court system due to systematic abuse of citizens.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zraver View Post
        Given the sheer number of complaints both official and unofficial (social media filming for example) we may be talking as high as 10% of uniformed law enforcement being dirty. The US has seen an entire metro area police departments taken over by the federal court system due to systematic abuse of citizens.
        For those who find my "10% of cops give the rest a good name" to be too cynical - the above statement verifies it. One in every 10 simply cannot be dirty without some form of complicity from the other 9. Those with their eyes purposely closed, or not "ratting out a brother of the thin blue line" in my book are WORSE than the dirty cop. There are indeed bad apples in every group of people, but those that are bad know it and make no pretenses. Those who toe the line have convinced themselves that they still do the public good by their service.
        "Bother", said Poo, chambering another round.

        Comment


        • You should read this Sarah Stillman: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker

          It will offend you and confirm your suspicions.

          Comment


          • Here's another annoying part of the militarization of police - do they have an obligation to NOT obey an unlawful order?

            As a military man, I know that saying "I was following orders" will do me as much good as some of history's greatest monsters.

            As far as I can tell though, following orders or "policy" is enough to excuse behavior and excesses by the cops.

            If they want to dress like the military, maybe they should have some of the responsibilities of an 18 year old E3 and know the difference between right and wrong.
            "Bother", said Poo, chambering another round.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tuna View Post
              Here's another annoying part of the militarization of police - do they have an obligation to NOT obey an unlawful order?

              As a military man, I know that saying "I was following orders" will do me as much good as some of history's greatest monsters.

              As far as I can tell though, following orders or "policy" is enough to excuse behavior and excesses by the cops.

              If they want to dress like the military, maybe they should have some of the responsibilities of an 18 year old E3 and know the difference between right and wrong.
              To clarify, as a member of the military you are obliged to follow all lawful orders issued to you by your superiors while on duty. The key word here being 'lawful'. You were only obeying orders is therefore a perfectly legitimate responce in most day to day circumstances. It's only when you contemplate committing an act that breaches the Militaty Code of Justice that it is rendered unacceptable. As for policy, like doctrine it is there to be followed only until such time as circumstances create a situation where following it is likely to lead to worse outcomes than not, either because a unique set of circumstances has arisen not previosly anticpated under the policy in question or because something specifically prevented you from following the policy in question.

              The difference should be clear, beaching a law automaticaly mandates the imposition of the relevant penalty,
              breaching a policy does not. As for the relative responibilities of police v the miltary, to the extent they are different professions you are talking apples and oranges. Two points though:

              1) This isn't a pissing contest;
              2) 18 year old E3s aren't let off base strolling around in public with loaded firearms. (Although lets face it, I can't think of many jobs where I would let your average 18 year old do anything without supervision seeing as how being 18 and thinking you know everything and are indestructable seem to go hand in hand.)
              Last edited by Monash; 17 Aug 13,, 09:27.
              If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

              Comment


              • Comment


                • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  You should read this Sarah Stillman: The Use and Abuse of Civil Forfeiture : The New Yorker

                  It will offend you and confirm your suspicions.
                  This is greatly offensive. This is nothing short of highway robbery. Why the hell are not the Feds investigating this because these are probably cause for federal crimes of corruption and acting under color of law? if they are being stymied by states' rights arguments, this is a damning indictment of states' rights arguments.

                  Comment


                  • Recently I even heard of an instance where a SWAT team was dispatched to a barber shop for a license inspection, and another one where a house was being watched by a helicopter and a SWAT team raided the place, all because the natural foods farm might have had marajuana plants. Absolutely ridiculous.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                      This is greatly offensive. This is nothing short of highway robbery. Why the hell are not the Feds investigating this because these are probably cause for federal crimes of corruption and acting under color of law? if they are being stymied by states' rights arguments, this is a damning indictment of states' rights arguments.
                      The feds do investigate some of these. But they are hard to prove because the victims sign waivers and release all rights and claims to the property. Right now these cases are likely view with minimal scrutiny and unless a higher standard of review is applied or the law is changed nothing is likely to change. It makes agencies so much money that change is unlikely, too many cops addicted to too much money.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                        Half of all intentional shootings by police involve dogs. This is not a minority issue, it's a policy issue. Shooting dogs upon entry is SOP for SWAT. This is not a few bad apples issue, it's a policy issue. Using SWAT more and more for things like administrative searches and busting up the neighborhood poker game in full tactical gear is not an issue about the misdeeds of a few, it's a policy issue. Holding nobody responsible for showing up to the wrong house unannounced and blowing away your dog in it's own house or yard is a policy issue. Raiding a bar in full tactical gear and detaining and searching everyone there under the guise of an administrative search to get around the lack of a warrant is a policy issue.

                        We're not talking about the faults of a minority. We're talking about a system that allows for these things to happen, defends it, and in some cases encourages it.
                        I know what you mean. On the inhumanity of it all...

                        dogassistance | BLUtube
                        If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                          I know what you mean. On the inhumanity of it all...

                          dogassistance | BLUtube
                          Seems to me you have a basic contempt for the citizen, everything we bring up you make light of, blow off or otherwise consign to irrelevance.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Monash View Post
                            I know what you mean. On the inhumanity of it all...

                            dogassistance | BLUtube
                            How funny do you find this?

                            Police officer Robert Lasso shot dead after pointing his stun gun at man's dogs | Mail Online

                            Comment


                            • ^^^ Maybe that officer should have respected the command of the private property owner to stay off of his land unless he had a warrant. Further, having been denied entry and PA makes torturing an animal a felony offense the cop was acting under color of law and thus the citizen was entitled to act to stop the felony and defend what was his.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                                Seems to me you have a basic contempt for the citizen, everything we bring up you make light of, blow off or otherwise consign to irrelevance.
                                Nope! Apart from the video above (which is very funny, and on topic) show me where in any of my previous posts I have shown 'contempt for the citizen', unless of course your definition of contempt includes daring to disagree with you. Nowhere in my posts have I made light of, blown off, consigned to irrelevance or otherwise trivialized the issues at hand.

                                What I have done in response to the numerous examples of Police "misconduct" is provide where I can some insight into the potential issues at hand and the reasons certain actions may have been taken. I have also cautioned against making judgements in the absence of all the facts and made it quite clear I had no intention of trying to justify the actions (good or bad) of the officers involved in the every one of the examples raised in this thread. I have neither the time, the energy or the interest to be an apologist for every bad outcome (out of the thousands of 'good' or 'neutral' ones occurring daily) that get highlighted here.

                                I would also point out that given the huge number of different LEA jurisdictions in the US it would be difficult for anyone let alone someone with a foreign Policing background to comment on the specifics reasons a particular US LEA might have operated in the manner they did. I am not an expert of US LEO so I tend to refrain from making definitive statements one way or the other, a practice you can and obviously do choose to ignore.

                                Take the use of 'SWAT' teams for what a civilian might regard as a routine day to day Policing duties, the barber shop incident being a good example. On face value without knowing the facts it looks like an overreaction, perhaps it was. However the first thing that comes to mind is that nothing is stated in the report about the background circumstances. For instance:

                                1) was the owner 'known to Police' i.e did he have a history of violence or a was he known to have carried a firearm in the past;
                                2) were firearms or drugs etc suspected to be stored on the premises;
                                2) was the owner abusive, violent or obstructive when approached by county officials during a prior licensing inspection;
                                3) Were the officers attending the shop as part of another investigation with the licensing issue used as an cover or aside; and
                                4) What are/were the relevant PD's OH&S Policies regarding the utilization of 'SWAT' officers when available

                                These are just some questions that come to mind. I raise the last because ballistic armour, utility vests and long arms etc are part of the 'tools of trade' for LEO. The equivalent of hard hats and work boots to be worn/utilized in those environments where they are justified and wow betide the OIC who, based on the information known at the time sends his officers out to a situation where higher levels of protection were justified without that protection.

                                Threat assessments aren't just for the military, a PD that fails to equip, train or deploy its officers in accordance with the relevant OH&S standards will get it's arse sued off the first time a member of the public or an employee gets injured as a result. Hence what often appears as an OTT response in the form of tactically equipped officers for what an outside observer might regard as a minor incident. Supervisors can and do adopt the view that assuming you have the resources at hand it's better to go in over-equipped and ratchet down than go in under-equipped and not have the ability to ratchet up. You live in an armed society. Why is surprising that LEO react to this fact by utilizing (workplace) protective measures.

                                So, you want to criticize the standards of Policing in the US by all means do so - it should be done. Reasoned, critical assessments of the performance of all organizations are part and parcel of making them perform better. But at least try to gather some statistics, analysis of trends or official reports reports etc that support your POV.

                                Otherwise your just engaging in a whinge fest.

                                woof woof!
                                Last edited by Monash; 21 Aug 13,, 14:45.
                                If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X