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.
We aren’t going to be able to stop the proliferation of the military weapons to local police forces.
It’s important, however, to change those things we can, and in this case one thing to change is our perception of those weapons.
We need to begin thinking of them as resources for our side, resources being maintained and fueled for us to use when they are needed.
I was a civilian (state employee) security guard at an Air Guard base in the 80’s after I left the service. Depending on my post that night I carried a S&W .38 revolver & 18 rounds or a FULLY AUTOMATIC (selective fire) Air-Force style M-16 with 120 rounds on my person. The local PD were actually somewhat scared of us. LOL
How about we quit breeding gibsmedats, quit inviting illegal aliens into the country ... maybe then we wouldn’t “need” uniformed thugs.
It would be a great help for the authorities to evoke more relaxed standards for self and property defense in situations of rampant lawlessness such as was the case in Ferguson.
The author is full of crap.
The problem is that when police are kitted out with military gear they will use it. Not just for riots, but they will do more mundane jobs, way down scale from riots, using the same tactics. It’s already happening, and people are already dead who should not be.
The every day cop needs his side arm and maybe a semi-auto rifle or shotgun in the trunk with a vest and helmet. Beyond that the “tactical unit” should be available for call up for specific incidents where there is a known SIGNIFICANT threat.
This does not mean serving normal warrants. If the need to serve a warrant or confront a significant threat arises then is should be executed on a rare basis rather than routine.
Not hardly, and it points to your 'us vs. them' mindset.
Police are supposed to be there to provide a service to the public. The public gets to decide how they are equipped. That's not hate, except in some twisted, steroid deranged bully's mind.
/johnny
Spot-on Brevity Award, goes to Timber Rattler!
A military uniform should be reserved exclusively for military use - it is a universally recognized symbol that the Most Powerful Force in the World has arrived to kill enemies and SAVE populations.
Bloused camo pants aren’t going to stop a bullet any quicker than police uniform pants. Departments need to bugger off with the dress-up crap and the government needs to stop acting like a damn arms dealer to agency departments. And that includes painting armoured vehicles in camo or flat grey - paint the darn thing like the police vehicle it is.
If departments insist on on their officers being dressed up like rhinestone cowboys, AND they expect to retain the support of the military, then they might want to strongly consider conducting themselves under Warrior rules and knock off fostering perceptions that make REAL warriors look bad:
Police are a tool of the local citizens, to make their life easier. The military are to kick ass, take names, and protect the sovereignty of a nation.
/johnny
Bingo. Part of the Grand Leftist Plan.
Sooner or later, the good guys are going to win. In a way, all this is a big bluff.
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.
We need “good old boys” on the beat, as the US had 50 years ago. We do not need jack-booted thugs yelling “Get on the ground, GET ON THE GROUND, NOW!”
In Britain citizens don’t have guns.
Your comments are weird.
Not even the most liberal black Democrat would agree with you. (They are mostly looking to get more blacks employed as cops).
I wouldn’t walk around certain areas without being armed, many people don’t leave their home without being armed, which is probably the smartest way to go. I believe people should be armed in general; I don’t think being a cop should cause to be disarmed.
I was able to see the image by doing some unarmed investigation, reading the source html and using another browser to go directly to the site that doesn't allow hotlinking.
/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.
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.