Posted on 08/16/2014 4:38:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As the government on all levels grows bigger, more powerful and more intrusive so will its armed enforcers. No two ways about it.
It’s interesting because arguing against the “militarization of police” ultimately is saying that more power has to go to State and Federal government than local.
Its somewhat analogous to 2nd amendment issue where the anti-right-to-bear side says big brother will take care of you, so you don’t need guns.
Here it is big big brother will come in and take care of your city if there are any problems, so you don’t need equipment to deal with riots or other threats to your city.
The point is those threats are vanishingly rare in most cases, and out of all proportion to the equimpment. To justify the expense, they have to use it, so the rules of engagement get looser and looser.
I’ll take my chances with the occasional riot.
Not the cops.
/johnny
Big difference between a police force with riot gear and the para-military forces of Federal Departments which shouldn’t even have a law enforcement branch.
If I’m on the ground with a boot on my neck, it doesn’t make much difference whether it’s a Fed, State, or local patch on the uniform.
I have been thinking about this for a little while now, but assumed if I put something out like this I would be rabidly flamed. Police have always been paramilitary, even their ranks are taken from the military. In fact, a lot of cops are former military, and carry the same deep respect for their fellow Americans as they did when they served. Back around the turn of the 20th century, cops were arming themselves with everything the gangsters had. They had fully auto Thompsons, and a host of other weapons that should have been alarming to the public. Times are changing fast, as demonstrated by all the discussion over what authority, or access cops should have over electronic media, and some seem to think cops should still be using a cheap ball-point pen and a sheet of carbon paper. Really, how many of us have ever seen cops armed with the equipment we are seeing in these photos? Cops prepare for worst case scenarios, and they should. I think the armored vehicles are a little over the top, but if that vehicle is the key that provides them the access to rescue people in a terrorist attack, then so be it. Certain elements in our society now believe they have the right, whenever they are offended, to take to the street, and disrupt the lives of every other citizen, and peace through strength doesn’t just apply to foreign policy.
They certainly don't need to be armed against the citizenry by the state.
I also carry everywhere. Cops don't need to. To turn it around. ;)
/johnny
If the author must be a left wing fascist or a right wing fascist, there are plenty of countries for him (or her) to go to and be tossed without a care ... into the cauldron.
The United States of America is not up for sale to any police state authority nor to the many martinets who are mad enough to think, that the power they want to unleash ... will not be used against *them* personally.
You want a police state here? You will get fully-armed civil war, and much sooner.
Your proposal is to do that ... because you think that you want some solution ... because you “want to get to it” ... because you say “bring it.”
It will be brought, you and everything that you care and love, will be destroyed.
All the while you could not be bothered to love liberty and the worthy foundations of our blessed, free democratic-republic, the principles for which, *must* be defended.
The author is an utter failure at defending these principles, within the writing of his frustration for the day.
Yeah, no ####. The cartels have automatic weapons, muzzies are probably stockpiling heavy weapons and explosives in the basements of mosques, street thugs are carrying concealed weapons (up to and including automatic weapons, even here in little old Grand Rapids), and racist thieves are rioting in Missouri and elsewhere.
Of course, there will always be those who blame the police for not being diverse enough, or not being culturally sensitive enough, or for daring to duck when people throw things at them — and those people are even on FR. I’ve even been told, ridiculously enough, that it was only a matter of time before I was illegally detained by police for no reason whatsoever, and that was in open thread.
Apropos of nothing, paranoia is one consequence of long term drug use.
Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
“The writer seriously understates the importance to effective policing of having public’s good will.”
I think what you’re trying to say is the key.
It’s how any police force or other organization uses their equipment.
Militarization of the police is beginning to sound a lot like the gun issue.
Blame the guns, not the murderer.
Blame the equipment, not the abuse of power.
Ultimately it points to more control from the Feds and less individual and local autonomy.
If police are militarized, its because our government has become increasingly centralized, and the progressive policy of the welfare state and government management over society have disconnected people from their local communities and their rights and responsibilities to civil society.
yes
The Ferguson riots are not even significant in the context of race riots, much less insurrection or revolt. My late father had just retired from the Marines and was working in Watts the day the riots broke out. Now remember, he had been a Gunnery Sergeant and veteran of three wars months before and was 6 feet tall and 225. He very nearly lost his life that day just because his company had placed him in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Not just incorrect, but off by 50%. We're a long way from Mayberry. Even in 1960, crime was starting to skyrocket. Since then, the numbers have gotten steadily worse, as the following per capita crime rates show:
|
Year |
Population |
Total |
Violent |
Property |
Murder |
Rape |
Robbery |
assault |
Burglary |
Theft |
Theft |
|
1960 |
179,323,175 |
1,887.2 |
160.9 |
1,726.3 |
5.1 |
9.6 |
60.1 |
86.1 |
508.6 |
1,034.7 |
183.0 |
|
1961 |
182,992,000 |
1,906.1 |
158.1 |
1,747.9 |
4.8 |
9.4 |
58.3 |
85.7 |
518.9 |
1,045.4 |
183.6 |
|
2011 |
311,587,816 |
3,292.5 |
387.1 |
2,905.4 |
4.7 |
27.0 |
113.9 |
241.5 |
701.3 |
1,974.1 |
230.0 |
|
2012 |
313,914,040 |
3,246.1 |
386.9 |
2,859.2 |
4.7 |
26.9 |
112.9 |
242.3 |
670.2 |
1,959.3 |
229.7 |
If you think crime is out of control, you're right. It's just less out of control than in the 80's and 90's, such that it is over double the rate of the early 60's, which was itself much higher than the norm in the 50's.
So you support only the Feds having the right to have such potential force.
OK.
“The point is those threats are vanishingly rare in most cases, and out of all proportion to the equimpment. “
Exactly what the gun grabbers say.
Your idea of up-arming police might have merit if the cops actually were effective against the feral lawless that appear in places like Detroit.
It isn't effective, so stop it.
/johnny
People here probably don’t realize that most countries have police units that take orders from the central government (as in the UK) and not local leaders.
I notice you made a big jump from 1961 to 2011.
I simply want to disarm most police officers. They don't need their firearms for their official duties. A special squad can handle those situations.
/johnny
I agree.
Such as how about arresting MoJo when he’s buying his 40 ounce at the convenience store or something, not waiting until after midnight and raiding his house where his kids also live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.