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.
Good point! Of course, having a corrupt police force is really bad for society.
I live in Texas and I pity the fool that breaks into my home.
Seriously, they have radios. They can call for a special squad of armed LEs. They do it in Britain all the time.
/johnny
I find your comments specious and unserious.
The writer points to extreme cases when it might be nice to be up-armored. However, the practical application of this militarization is in everyday activities. When the government has a hammer, everything they see seems to be a nail.
Likewise, and I doubt many Freepers ever need a firearm pointed at them to make them follow the law.
Not necessarily — one could simply believe as Adama of Battlestar Galactica: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
:’)
It was a good thread, in that it got me to express my opinion to the officials that I elect.
/johnny
He uses some false analogies. For example, because the LAPD need to turn out in force because of a major riot in south-central LA, does that mean that police in thousands of cities and towns in the US need military arms in case there is a major riot in Podunk?
Do police in a small town need an armored vehicle, explosives and fully automatic weapons? Many years ago, one well known Sheriff tried to justify having a .30 caliber, belt-fed Browning machine gun on the grounds that if someone hijacked a commercial aircraft near his airport, he wanted the means to *shoot it down*. Uh, no. Not your job.
And beyond the weapons and equipment, the reason police departments all over the US created SWAT teams was because of a small number of police assassinations by radical leftists in the 1970s. Encouraged by the federal government, police changed their training to assume, for example, that *everyone* could be a potential cop-assassinating terrorist. Which is utter hooey.
It is as irrational as the TSA searching an elderly Irish grandmother in a wheelchair because she *might* be a terrorist, and we *certainly* don’t want to *profile* young Saudi Arabian Arabic Muslim men with beards, carrying Korans, who try to smuggle cigarette lighters on board even though they don’t smoke.
You are right to consider the potential danger the federal government posed to the citizens. The sheriff departments across the land are a safety valve to political police departments (a reason Maryland is trying to eliminate them). Sheriffs, voted in by the people, are not beholding to immediate political whim.
Prior to around 1920 any British subject could wank into a hardware store & buy the equivalent of a military rifle any pistol or shotgun . The trouble started with the Communist Revolution & the whacking of the Czar & his family.
Congratulations!
You've just posted the most idiotic idealistic drivel I've ever read on FR.
Word to the wise: Idealism gets people killed.
Inadvertently, of course, but people still get killed nonetheless.
Are you seriously this detached from reality?
I guess, according to some FReepers, police should only be equipped with flint-lock muzzle loaders; anything more is “militarization.”
They certainly turned everything into a crap sammich.
/johnny
The term militarization of police is at most an analogy.
You seem to be taking it literally. This is why I said I found your comments specious or not serious.
“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.
I agree that Federal grants to local police can be a type of honey-trap and that can be addressed Federally and locally.
Most of the police work done by my local PD doesn't require firearms, and the locals know it.
They could easily call in some special squad if required.
On the other hand, I have loaned a local cop a towel so he could help animal control pick up a big, wet dog and put it into the animal control truck without trashing his fresh, start-of-shift uniform.
The local didn't shoot the dog. He didn't need his gun at all. He needed a towel or a smock to protect his dry-cleaning.
/johnny
Interesting.
State & local funding of local police is more than sufficient to arm local & state police forces with sidearms/shotguns & rifles.
What they do on their own time, with their own money is up to them, since they are citizens, too.
/johnny
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.