 |
| These are not American Soldiers. They are Police Officers at the Ferguson Missouri protests. |
He also announced the implementation of training programs to assure the appropriate use of other items. Because of his announcement, Homeland Security and the military can no longer transfer some weapons, such as grenade launchers, and IED resistant armored personnel carriers, other weaponized vehicles, and bayonets to police departments.
Obama stated, "We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like it’s an occupying force as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them." And yes, he went on to say, "So we’re going to prohibit equipment made for the battlefield that is not appropriate for local police departments."
In response to Obama's announcement, the police labor union, the Fraternal Order of Police stated that the White House plan to restrict local police forces’ ability to acquire military-style gear was Obama’s way of "politicizing officers’ safety."
The executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, James Pasco, stated that his group "will be at our most aggressive in asserting the need for officer safety and officer rights in any police changes that are to be effected". And yes, Pasco also stated, "you can’t send police officers out to be hurt or killed."
Pasco puts me in a position that I find absolutely strange! It seems that I have finally found something in which I have to agree with Obama.
Since I believe in fairness, being fair I will say it right here, President Obama is not wrong on this. And yes, this is the very first thing that he has said that I can say that.
Besides, call me old-fashion, but is Pasco saying that law enforcement cannot be safe without tactical armored vehicles, automatic weapons, and other small arms including grenade launchers, and bayonets?
If so, then maybe Pasco should take another look at what constitutes police work. I know for fact that using tactical armored vehicles, fully automatic weapons, and other small arms including grenade launchers, and bayonets is above and beyond the normal day to day needs of law enforcement agencies in the United States.
Can Pasco name one instance where a mine resistant armored vehicle, or a bayonet, or a grenade launcher, can be used in the administration of justice?
Fact is, police departments do not need these items to function proficiently. Besides, how can any department truly rationalize having weapons used to conduct war fighting?
Fact is, police departments do not need these items to function proficiently. Besides, how can any department truly rationalize having weapons used to conduct war fighting?
When I was trained in police work, never did anyone ever say that I would need a tank, a grenade launcher, or a bayonet to stay safe. As a matter of fact, no one ever told me to unload my service pistol into the subject in lieu of making an arrest.
If you are wondering what do I know about this subject on a first hand basis? Well last year I wrote about the Militarization of Federal Law Enforcement agencies and my initial first hand experience.
In that article, I pointed out that the term "para-military" is one that I first became familiar with back almost 40 years ago when I was involved in the training of SWAT team police officers and deputies at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in Southern California.
The police officers were there for an introduction to Urban Warfare and Weapons Familiarization training. Most, if not all, volunteered for their department's SWAT teams. None were Federal law enforcement, all were police officers and sheriffs deputies from the Southern California area.
The police officers were there for an introduction to Urban Warfare and Weapons Familiarization training. Most, if not all, volunteered for their department's SWAT teams. None were Federal law enforcement, all were police officers and sheriffs deputies from the Southern California area.
If memory serves me well, they were from LAPD, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Orange County Sheriff's Department, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, and a couple of other departments.
The term "para-military" is used to describe a group of civilians organized in a military fashion. Please understand, none of those attending the training were military personnel. They were not Soldiers or Marines, they were Cops.
Though roughly organized in a military fashion, the mission of law enforcement is "to protect and serve." Certainly not close with and kill as is the mission of a Marine rifleman in combat.
Yes, the mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad, which they were there that day to learn from, is "to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel enemy assault by fire and close combat." Yes, to find and kill the enemy.
At the time, I was an Instructor and volunteered to be there for the day. As I stated in the article last year, the day turned out a lot differently that I thought it would.
I remember a fellow Instructor, another Marine Sgt. calling them, "amateurs" and "wannabes." Another referred to them as "mistakes waiting to happen!" I remember not really knowing what to think of those guys other than not caring for their "know-it-all" attitudes.
The term "para-military" is used to describe a group of civilians organized in a military fashion. Please understand, none of those attending the training were military personnel. They were not Soldiers or Marines, they were Cops.
Though roughly organized in a military fashion, the mission of law enforcement is "to protect and serve." Certainly not close with and kill as is the mission of a Marine rifleman in combat.
Yes, the mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad, which they were there that day to learn from, is "to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and/or repel enemy assault by fire and close combat." Yes, to find and kill the enemy.
At the time, I was an Instructor and volunteered to be there for the day. As I stated in the article last year, the day turned out a lot differently that I thought it would.
I remember a fellow Instructor, another Marine Sgt. calling them, "amateurs" and "wannabes." Another referred to them as "mistakes waiting to happen!" I remember not really knowing what to think of those guys other than not caring for their "know-it-all" attitudes.
It was a day when they were there to get a crash course, a one day course, on Urban Warfare. After spending the first half of the day in the classroom, then went to the range for their "FAM Fire" -- also known as familiarization fire -- with small arms, all weapons which were used in a Marine Rifle Squad at the time.
Again, if my memory is correct, on the range, the officers were all there to learn to safely handle and FAM fire the M1911A1 (.45 ACP) semi-automatic pistol, the M14 (7.62mm) rifle in semi-automatic fire, the M16A1 (5.56mm) rifle in semi-automatic and fully automatic rates of fire.
We Marines even demonstrated the use of the M60 Machine Gun, the M79 (40mm) Grenade launcher, the LAWs rocket, and the capabilities of an M40 106 Recoilless Rifle.
We used to joke about cops being bad shots, and on that day we found out that most didn't know the basics of tactics, or the use of their weapons, or as far as that goes weapons safety. But friends, you couldn't tell them that. We were there to teach and they were there to learn, but many of us soon felt that they saw us as just taking up their time.
We used to joke about cops being bad shots, and on that day we found out that most didn't know the basics of tactics, or the use of their weapons, or as far as that goes weapons safety. But friends, you couldn't tell them that. We were there to teach and they were there to learn, but many of us soon felt that they saw us as just taking up their time.
Yes, it became very apparent very quickly that they knew it all from watching television and playing soldier as kids in their backyards. And yes, when it came to important aspects of the use of these weapons and tactical discipline, such as Fire Control and Fire Discipline, it was very apparent that they weren't interested in what we had to show them. It seemed that they had other ideas.
Fire Control relates to a leader's ability to adjust fire onto a target, to shift all or part of the fire from one target to another, and to regulate the rate of fire. It has everything to do with having your men commence and/or cease fire at the instant you want them to for an array of reasons.
Fire Control relates to a leader's ability to adjust fire onto a target, to shift all or part of the fire from one target to another, and to regulate the rate of fire. It has everything to do with having your men commence and/or cease fire at the instant you want them to for an array of reasons.
While Fire Control is vital to a mission, a leader must also ensure his men respect Fire Discipline so that he may exercise Fire Control. Yes, one hand washes the other. Fire Discipline is achieved when the unit has been taught and pays strict attention to instructions regarding the use of weapons and can collectively execute fire commands with precision. Fire Discipline also has everything to do with limited fire to conserve ammunition and shooting accurately.
Fire Control and Fire Discipline is what us who were in the infantry trained at everyday. And yes, as you can tell, this is the complete opposite of the "spray and pray" firing technique of choice in Hollywood movies.
Fire Control and Fire Discipline is what us who were in the infantry trained at everyday. And yes, as you can tell, this is the complete opposite of the "spray and pray" firing technique of choice in Hollywood movies.
As the years have passed, I've watched as many para-military law enforcement organizations at both the Federal, State, and local levels, become more and more equipped like rogue constabulary in Third World countries -- All fully armed and trying to justify their existence.
The shocking thing for me that day was my seeing was how they acted with the weapons that they FAM fired. They acted as if they were more like toys than weapons for war fighting.
And yes, I see the same attitude today. These days with the acquisition of military equipment that they are getting from the Federal Government, department act as though they are toys that they can't wait to acquire and use in some situation against citizens.
Let's face facts, while federal government agencies have a combined domestic para-military force almost as large as the entire United States Marine Corps, states and city departments are gearing up like never before.
The shocking thing for me that day was my seeing was how they acted with the weapons that they FAM fired. They acted as if they were more like toys than weapons for war fighting.
And yes, I see the same attitude today. These days with the acquisition of military equipment that they are getting from the Federal Government, department act as though they are toys that they can't wait to acquire and use in some situation against citizens.
Let's face facts, while federal government agencies have a combined domestic para-military force almost as large as the entire United States Marine Corps, states and city departments are gearing up like never before.
And the question becomes, "Why? Where is the need for such equipment? Where is the justification?" Homicides are at a 40 year low, and law enforcement officer shooting at the lowest since 1887. The FBI crime statistics show that violent crime is actually down to the lowest its been in more than 30 years.
If that's the case, than why the soldier mentality? Why do we need modern American Police State? How can anyone justify the militarization of city and county law enforcement officers?
I do know how it started. It started right after the fall of the Soviet Union's Communist empire when there was something called the "Peace Dividend."
The "peace dividend" was said to be the money that the United States did not have to spend on military equipment, and arms, and to maintain bases. Because of the so-called "peace dividend" soon bases were closes and arms programs were cut.
I remember this well because I was working for a Defense Contractor at the time and many of our contract were canceled. In fact many of the Defense Contractors at the time were told, that after almost 50 years of building arms and equipment for our military, they had to retool or find other customers.
I remember this well because I was working for a Defense Contractor at the time and many of our contract were canceled. In fact many of the Defense Contractors at the time were told, that after almost 50 years of building arms and equipment for our military, they had to retool or find other customers.
Yes, some of those Defense Contractors found other customers in the way of city and county law enforcement agencies. And yes, it was called the "1033 Program."
The 1033 program was created by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 as part of the U.S. Government's Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLA). The 1033 program was created to transfer "excess" military equipment to law enforcement agencies.
The 1033 program was created by the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 as part of the U.S. Government's Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services (DLA). The 1033 program was created to transfer "excess" military equipment to law enforcement agencies.
As of 2014, believe it or not, it is a fact that 8,000 local law enforcement agencies participate in the re-utilization program that has transferred $5.1 Billion in military hardware from the Department of Defense to local American law enforcement agencies, And yes, that has taken place since 1997.
During this time, civilian police departments have obtained surplus aircraft, watercraft, tactical armored vehicles, automatic weapons, and other small arms including grenade launchers, and bayonets.
It wasn't until September 11, 2001, that Defense Contractors refocused their attention on providing for the military. And yes, soon to follow 9/11 was the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security.
Of course, as many already know, these days the militarization of America's civilian law enforcement has been taking place with the help of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS has been extremely willing to give American Taxpayer Dollars to any Federal, State and local department for whatever military hardware they desire. And yes, as a result, today there is a dramatic increase in the use of para-military units for routine police work.
So today, whether it's the DEA, or ICE, or our county sheriffs, the most common use today is a forced unannounced entry into homes across America. And yes, in many instances, masked!
So today, whether it's the DEA, or ICE, or our county sheriffs, the most common use today is a forced unannounced entry into homes across America. And yes, in many instances, masked!
Why masked? Who knows! Maybe the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, James Pasco, can answer how being a masked intruder executing a mo-knock search lends to officer safety?
Besides trying to justify the use of military equipment as being a safety concern, another attempt at rationalizing the use of military weapons and tactics on domestic soil seems obvious when we look no further than the recent hunt for the Tsarnaev brothers after the Boston Marathon bombings. But folks, what the Tsarnaev brothers did is not the norm. That wasn't a routine situation.
Today, thousands of police departments nationwide have recently acquired stun grenades, armored tanks, counterattack vehicles, and all sorts of other para-military equipment, much of it purchased with asset-forfeiture funds.
These acquisitions have no doubt helped to transform full-scale, bust-down-the-door raids on homes and businesses from red-alert rarities, which were once upon a time reserved for life-threatening scenarios, to commonplace occurrences today.
As for these raids, in 1972, America conducted only a few hundred para-military drug raids a year. By the early 1980's, that figure became 3,000 a year. By 2001, it was reported that the annual count had skyrocketed to 40,000 military style raids a years.
As one report put it, "today, even that number seems impossibly low, with one annual count of combat-style home raids hovers around 80,000 a year." Yes, that number is 80,000 a year.
It is widely agreed up that on the overall they are needlessly subjecting non-violent offenders, bystanders, and wrongly targeted civilians to the terror of having their homes invaded while they’re sleeping, usually by teams of heavily armed as masked soldiers -- not as police officers.
Yes, these raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors -- but more importantly, the raids themselves terrorize innocents, especially when these law enforcement units mistakenly target the wrong residence.
Yes, these raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to many of whom were guilty of only misdemeanors -- but more importantly, the raids themselves terrorize innocents, especially when these law enforcement units mistakenly target the wrong residence.
And yes, I know of a situation where that very thing took place and the elderly resident died as a result of a heart attack brought on by the local police officers who forced him to submit in the same way that a POW -- a prisoner of war -- would be made to submit. The city hid behind the law and was never held responsible for what they did.
So yes, besides the one or two instances that I know of personally, as I stated last year, these raids have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries to children, bystanders, and innocent people thought to be suspects.
We need to ask ourselves if this is what we want from law enforcement? Do we want a Police State? Do we need law enforcement using SWAT tactics to do their "police work?" Do we want law enforcement to act like the military and simply use deadly force and shot to kill in every instance like our military, or do we want police officers and deputies who shot to disable and arrest suspects?
In combat, there is no such thing as shooting to disable, it is always a shoot to kill moment when facing down an enemy. Do we want police to look at citizens as their enemy? Do we need to give law enforcement the ability to abuse its power? Do we need to hand over military equipment for them to feel safer than they did without the availability of tanks and bayonets?
I stated this last year, and I will say it again. Back some 40 years ago, after that day of dealing with police officers and sheriff's deputies, I remember my Gunny Sgt. who put things this way.
He said, "These guys don't know if they want to be cops or soldiers. Most of these guys see themselves as soldiers when they're supposed to be cops."
I stated this last year, and I will say it again. Back some 40 years ago, after that day of dealing with police officers and sheriff's deputies, I remember my Gunny Sgt. who put things this way.
He said, "These guys don't know if they want to be cops or soldiers. Most of these guys see themselves as soldiers when they're supposed to be cops."
He was right regarding another point as well when he said, "Power like this, used among our civilians? I've seen it in Third World countries, but not here. Unchecked, this can be very dangerous!"
He was right, local police on law enforcement missions are not soldiers. And frankly, they should not be equipped or resemble soldiers. From bloused boots to military style so-called tactical fatigues, while not of a caliber of the United States Marine Corps, more and more police departments are indeed attempting to adopt the persona of wannabe soldiers.
If they wanted to be in America's military, they should have joined our military and found out what being professional soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines is really all about -- including the low pay, long hours, and no labor union to pitch a fit whenever they feel the need. Civilian law enforcement is just that: Civilians! They can dress and play military no different than other wannabes.
He was right, local police on law enforcement missions are not soldiers. And frankly, they should not be equipped or resemble soldiers. From bloused boots to military style so-called tactical fatigues, while not of a caliber of the United States Marine Corps, more and more police departments are indeed attempting to adopt the persona of wannabe soldiers.
If they wanted to be in America's military, they should have joined our military and found out what being professional soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines is really all about -- including the low pay, long hours, and no labor union to pitch a fit whenever they feel the need. Civilian law enforcement is just that: Civilians! They can dress and play military no different than other wannabes.
And yes, like it or not, along with the whole wannabe military dress, equipment, weapons, tactics, and overall conduct, these "para-military organizations" have become more and more abusive of their police powers.
Power like this, used among our civilians is dangerous. But thank God that right now the use of military equipment is being checked.
And as we can see by the pushback from people like the Police Union leader James Pasco, one can see that there are those who see nothing wrong with militarizing police departments. As scary and anti-American as it is, there are those in law enforcement today who want to militarize their departments even further.
And no, before you write to ask, I don't know why a policeman or woman would want to look like a soldier instead of wanting to look like a cop? I can remember when there was a clear difference between a police officer's uniform and a soldier's. That has changed and I believe the reason is not function but simply to intimidate.
While I support traditional law enforcement, I refuse to support snipers atop IED resistant armored personnel carriers scanning a crowd of Americans,
I have always supported Police Departments. I've always had a lot of respect for good cops. But friends, while overseas I experienced first hand what happens when the police are given too much power. I saw the abuse, and yes the murder of an innocent woman. And yes, they were equipped like the military.
While I support traditional law enforcement, I refuse to support snipers atop IED resistant armored personnel carriers scanning a crowd of Americans,
I do not want that to happen here because it is something that once started, as we will see in the next few months, is hard to stop. Like a narcotic, the desire for power and powerful equipment can be addicting.
There is no reason that American law enforcement has to dress to intimidate, or play the part of a soldier or Marine when in fact they are simply just cops.
And yes, that's just the way I see it.
Tom Correa
