Posted on 08/16/2014 4:38:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The rioting, protests and controversy continue to swirl around Ferguson this weekend, and you will no doubt be reading plenty of coverage from both sides about it. But in the background, a disturbing, larger national conversation has erupted out of the troubles in the St. Louis suburb. The hot topic everywhere seems to be a growing call to halt the so called “militarization” of the nation’s civilian police forces, highlighted by the riot suppression gear on display in Ferguson. It’s an argument coming from both sides of the ideological spectrum, too.
The IBD editorial board warns us to “beware” of this trend. John Fund, writing at National Review, worries over not just police, but a host of federal agencies being armed to the teeth. Bob Barr sounds the alarm as to how the psyche of our police must become warped when they are equipped like soldiers. Our own Noah Rothman has written thoughtfully on the subject, expressing some of his own concerns.
Frankly, I find the whole discussion to be a rather rapid rush to judgement and lacking in larger context. As far as the specific incidents in Ferguson go, we still need a lot more information before final conclusions can be drawn. The details of the initial shooting may remain in question, but what followed was well documented. Riots and looting broke out on a massive scale for such a small town, and continue this morning. The local police stood on the edge of being completely overwhelmed. And whether or not you find their level of response appropriate, this one local disturbance has turned into a national demand to defang the police. The Washington Post quickly began issuing advice on how to tame the cops. Clearly the nation’s legislators were listening, as Hank Johnson (D – Georgia) has already drafted legislation to do just that.
Am I the only one who finds this rather insulting to the nation’s first responders in general? Even if we are to assume that the Ferguson police crossed a line in breaking out their heaviest equipment in an attempt to reestablish control (which has not been conclusively proven at all, in my opinion), what of the rest of the country? As these critics frequently note, police departments in cities and towns of all sizes have been equipped with more modern, military style equipment for quite some time now and they don’t seem to be converting the rest of the nation into a series of oppressive death camps. And far too often, the cops find themselves in need of the “big guns” and body armor.
In case you think I’m coming in late to this debate, it’s not true. There was apparently a meeting held at some point in which Radley Balko was appointed as the go to guy for such discussions, but that dates back quite a ways. More than a year ago, Balko was pushing his ideas about so called “warrior cops” and at that time I penned an editorial stating that he was going too far.
Do we need “kinder and gentler” cops interacting with the community in a friendly fashion? It is certainly to the benefit of the police to be in good standing with a cooperative community and to know the people they protect and serve, but they also deserve a fighting chance when the situation suddenly turns violent and ugly. The rise of “warrior cops” may not be what everyone would hope for, but I don’t see any realistic alternatives.
While I both understand and sympathize with the reminiscing for the good old days, the times have changed. The era of the lovable flatfoot, twirling his baton and wagging a finger at the precocious kid about to steal some penny candy has passed us by. Have we collectively forgotten the riots that took place following the Rodney King verdict? How about the now infamous North Hollywood shootout? And for our friends on the Left, what about the next time somebody goes into an elementary school armed with a Bushmaster and a couple of 9mm Glocks? You don’t want us arming the teachers or having local residents open carrying to keep the school grounds safe. “Leave it to the cops,” you say. But should the cops be going into a situation like that with nothing more than a layer of cotton uniform and a revolver to protect themselves and take down the bad guys? Or should they have to wait until a SWAT unit from an “appropriately large city” shows up, with the shooter mowing down third graders in the meantime?
While the shooting of Michael Brown may provide a teachable moment in terms of police interactions with the community, the nearly immediate mayhem which followed should also serve as a timely reminder. The old assumptions of law enforcement and their unwritten compact with the citizenry relied on a society where the police – and the laws – were respected, and criminals were a minority who would be rejected by the rank and file residents. But when the majority of an entire community decides to break that compact, the formula changes. They realize that they outnumber – and frequently outgun – the cops. A slumbering, snarling beast is awakened and in short order the police can find themselves on the run. This is not a formula for freedom of speech… it’s the path to mayhem and the breakdown of civil society. Before you’re too quick to demand the “demilitarization” of the police, you might want to remember who it is that stands between the neighborhood you have now and South Central L.A circa 1992. And Ferguson has shown us that you don’t need a huge metropolitan area for it to happen.
My only comment would be:
Molotov Cocktails are severely underrated! :)
Considering the Black Panther-led riots of late in Ferguson, another truism of militarization emerges:
If you’re not willing to use the weapons you have, your opponent will not care you are armed.
MRAPs, machineguns, advanced body armor, etc are scary when putting on a “show of force”, but if the police demonstrate an unwillingness to _use_ it, impotence is proven and evil is unleashed.
I reminded my senator Cruz that the feds need to not be giving out military equipment.
The feds giving real military equipment to real local cops isn't a frigging analogy. It's real. It's deadly serious real.
/johnny
Perfect.
What do you call “military equipment” that police should not have?
You are free to disagree but I notice that you do not address the main point that I made & that is that the local leo’s whether you call them police or sheriffs or town marshals are an entirely different breed of cat than the military & that they have entirely different duties/responsibilities.
The local leo’s are charged with the keeping of civil order & the “peace” & that the military is charged with the killing of the enemies of the STATE(nation) & breaking their stuff & when you either militarize the police or make the military do police work the result is the CITIZENRY end up being VIEWED as the ENEMIES OF THE STATE.
There's hundreds of millions of dollars worth transferred every year.
I don't want local cops to have issue firearms, except for special squads, much less MRAPs and full-auto weapons.
/johnny
That is so idealistically saccharine that I'm tearing up right now. Almost seriously.
But you've got me thinking. I'm an extremely frugal person, and you may have a point about saving the taxpayer money. Local law enforcement probably can go without weaponry. Guns, bullets, they cost money.
But towels and smocks are cheap. We agree! Towels and smocks for the Men in Blue!
Just hope the ones who work in the inner city have a good life insurance policy.
Nope — I was in the Army for 9 years; I believe the term "militarization of police" is both accurate and literal based on my own experience.
Please present evidence that it is not.
You seem to be taking it literally. This is why I said I found your comments specious or not serious.
I think Null and Void has a series of police photos that adequately prove literal police militarization.
“Serious enough to take the time, because of this thread, to write my State and Federal elected officials, reminding them of my position that police at all levels need to be de-militarized, and their budgets reduced significantly.”
Police are local. It is telling that you want the Federal government to be able to control what a local community decides to do with their own money.
Several items:
Police are local. It is telling that you want the Federal government to be able to control what a local community decides to do with their own money.
Again, there is a federal funding issue here.
It is appropriate to bring such federal issue up with the federal representative/senator.
I agree that Federal grants to local police can be a type of honey-trap and that can be addressed Federally and locally.
Then why are you assuming evil intent on JRandomFreeper's part?
If they want heavy firepower, they need to clear out the nests of ferals, but that is dangerous. And all the firepower that has been shoved at cops hasn't worked.
If it doesn't work, stop doing it. It's not a difficult concept.
And the up-armored cops are pissing off the voters that pay for that crap. The money will stop flowing as a result.
/johnny
wank should be walk
Well no, it was not. The police were fully capable of handling riots before they started getting surplus MRAPs and full auto rifles.
All of the pro-militarized LEO posters have been civil, for the most part, outside of some hyperbole.
It's been a productive conversation. I've actually taken action to contact local, federal, and state elected and appointed officials with my position.
/johnny
Incorrect, because the issue with "militarisation of the police" is not so much about the equipment they carry as the attitudes they display. THAT'S not going to be fixed, just by giving the local po-po more power than the state and the feds.
Elected officials still are in control of the police in this country & if the mayor says you don’t go shooting folks for looting & you are the guy on the beat you don’t go capping a gangbanger stealing a case of beer.
/johnny
So you're advocating for wet noodles again?
If police can't go in some neighborhoods without each and every one of them carrying heavy weapons, that neighborhood needs a rework that the police aren't currently doing.
Gotta rethink what is going to work, and quit doing what doesn't work.
I'm not paying for you police to keep things as they are, I'm paying for you to work yourselves out of a job.
/johnny
That’s an interesting observation. Do we want:
A. “GET ON THE GROUND!! GETONTHEGROUNDNOW!!!”
OR:
B. “ Boy, you is in a heap of trouble!”
You’re right, I would take “B” as well.
CC
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.