Posted on 09/08/2014 7:08:49 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s happening. McCaskill apparently has introduced legislation that no agency can receive federal funding unless all officers have body cameras.
So to get federal funding to buy or replace body armor, you have to have body cameras which for a smaller municipality on a shoe string budget can be an excessive cost, not because of the camera but the secure server.
I have told people and I will continue to sound the alarm. I firmly believe that one day the feds will make a move to completely federalize the police and here is how I believe they will do it. Since agencies run on very tight budgets, DHS comes in and offers to offset the cost of running the agency in exchange for federal deputization of the agencies officers (which happens whenever a police officer goes to work for a federal task force, Title 18 and 21). The cash strapped agency has to make a decision, do I take the funds so I can continue to provide police service to the community or do turn down the offer and incur the wrath of the fed, which we are seeing in play at this moment in Ferguson.
Federal Deputization could mean the police are called up and tasked to go to other hotspots in the country at the behest of the federal government.
The selling point to the community will be that a federal oversight of all police officers will mean a diverse force, standard hiring and training practices nationwide, and increased accountability. The uninformed or weak minded will believe this.
And hence, the American Schutzstaffeln.
As likely a scenario as any.
The frightening thing to me is tht this federalized force will be tasked with enforcing federal law, not state or municipal statutes. That removes the proximity of the enforcement are from the community and further erodes stateand local control.
The last thing I want is some bureaucratic apparatus 1,000 miles away deciding enforcement policy on Main Street.
This should be fought with every effort.
I’m not a lawyer, but this issue of a federalizing the police (which I’m totally against) got me thinking about the Posse Comitatus Act (”PCA”).
I did a search and found what was linked below. Below are a few snips from it. While the PCA specifies the military (Army, etc.), if the Feds are providing police departments with military vehicles, gear, etc. and taking them over, don’t the PDs then essentially become a federal/national military force rather than a civilian law enforcement agency, so to speak? Just a thought and throwing that out there for FReepers that are much smarter on these and other issues than I am.
“The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. “Posse Comitatus” means the “power of the county,” reflecting the inherent power of the old west county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace.”
snip
“The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States.”
snip
“The intent of the Act is to prevent the military forces of the U.S. from becoming a national police force or guardia civil. Accordingly, the act prohibits the use of the military to “execute the laws”.[4],[5] Execution of the laws is perceived to be a civilian police function, which includes the arrest and detention of criminal suspects, search and seizure activities, restriction of civilian movement through the use of blockades or checkpoints, gathering evidence for use in court, and the use of undercover personnel in civilian drug enforcement activities.[6]
The federal courts have had several opportunities to define what behavior by military personnel in support of civilian law enforcement is permissible under the Act. The test applied by the courts has been to determine whether the role of military personnel in the law enforcement operation was “passive” or “active”. Active participation in civilian law enforcement, such as making arrests, is deemed to be a violation of the Act, while taking a “passive” supporting role is not.[7] Passive support has often taken the form of logistical support to civilian police agencies. Recognizing that the military possesses unique equipment and uniquely trained personnel, the courts have held that providing supplies, equipment, training, facilities, and certain types of intelligence information does not violate the Act. Military personnel may also be involved in the planning of law enforcement operations, as long as the actual arrest of suspects and seizure of evidence is carried out by civilian law enforcement personnel.[8] “
The military (primarily the Coast Guard) is already being used to interdict drug traffic. And during catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina, I believe Army troops (NOT National Guard) were placed at roadblocks in and around New Orleans.
But to your point about our militarized police forces ... The label doesn’t matter much. You can call them Crossing Guards but if they’re equipped with military-grade gear, trained in military tactics, reporting to the federal government through a military command and control structure, and deployed with the idea that they are an army standing against American citizens, then they are military. And that would be a violation of Posse Comitatus.
But this adminstration has never demonstrated an abundance of concern over fine legal points, so slapping a different name on them would be all the disguise they needed.
This is Machiavellian — even Hitlerian — in its implications. If We the People allow this, we deserve the coming Reich.
Historically, the citizens that believed the people's police, and the people's army will not fire on or imprison the people, have always been wrong.
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.