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.
Are you telling me you don’t think the country is doomed? You don’t think a collapse is inevitable?
Would you disagree that the typical prepper thinks this?
Exactly! This is the standard prepper mindset. You guys want collapse because you think it's the only way the country can be redeemed.
PLONK!
/johnny
Some of us don’t think the country can be redeemed. I am in that boat.
We cannot murder the unborn. We do not govern as free people. We have not figured out a way to get people such as those in Ferguson to participate in a civil society; what lies just beneath the surface is tribalism and a refusal to contribute. Ditto for gangbangers.
I don’t know what will come. I just know that this cannot continue indefinitely.
My political solution is to disarm most street cops, provide sufficient funding for a small, specialized armed force, and require the police to work themselves out of a job.
/johnny
One more thing.
The level of corruption in DC is beyond the pale of decency. It can neither continue as is nor be rooted out by one election cycle—or two.
No, it's not. Was America supposed to capitulate to the soviets just because our best and brightest believed it would fall of its own internal contradictions?
Advising against listening those who knew the soviets could not maintain their empire without our help would have been, in retrospect, asinine.
I would add that collapsing the “zeitgeist” would have a lot of collateral damage beyond just the structures that deserve to be collapsed (or reformed). A collapse in the full SHTF sense would involve the whole nation and its people.
The police should police- protect and serve, build community relationships. If they do get overwhelmed by a riot situation the governor should call out the National Guard to regain control. That is my opinion. Police departments cannot function like your local law enforcement one moment and an army the next. If the LEO are handy enough or have enough different type of officers to make that work- community perception will not allow it to work very long. There is a limit to what people are willing to accept and many have reached that limit or getting close.
Perception of LEO right now is thugs playing army that are kicking in doors for possession of marijuana, parking tickets, etc. and often kicking the wrong doors in at that. Perception is LEO are killing family pets, wounding and killing innocent people left and right. That perception is an exaggeration of reality. I still believe most LEOs are not thugs by far,by but the militarization is not helping with public opinion.
The militarization of so many federal agencies is even worse, few agencies need armed personnel- even fewer need anything close to a SWAT team or a small army.
Oh look, you’ve defined plonk. This is an attempt at ridicule, right?
My local police wind up doing a lot of stuff that probably isn't in the job description. Things like helping Animal Control (or taking over for them on the weekends) and code enforcement kind of stuff.
That isn't killing people and breaking things, which is what the military does.
/johnny
Take it back one step further: policy.
You create the police you need to enforce policy. As such, policy makers will ignore your suggested reforms as surely as a collectivist ignores individual liberties.
There won't be an answer to your hard question.
/johnny
I understand the sentiment. I just don't think anything constructive can come from it. I think it carries the risk of being self-fulfilling.
My daughter has rules. No running, jumping, or touching each other in the house. She has them written on a board on the wall.
When I enforce those, I tell the grandkids to read them, and tell me which one they broke.
I didn't make the rules, I enforce them. I wouldn't enforce them if they didn't make sense.
But there is ONE policy now and forever, and it's hanging on the wall for me and the grandkids to read.
/johnny
You don't know that, it's strictly speculation on your part.
They may ask you to explain parts to them.
/johnny
But that doesn't mean you have to disclose the policy you establish, particularly if said policies would prove unpopular.
With that in mind, establishing a police presence that walks, talks, and swims like a duck would seem prima facie evidence you intend to move toward policies that require ducks to enforce them.
You should read the things that preppers write. It’s clear that they’re waiting for a total collapse that would drastically affect the life of every man, woman, and child.
/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.