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.
In my extensive travels across the U.S. and Canada, one thing I found very interesting is that the places where there were hardly any police at all seemed to be populated by a law-abiding citizenry.
You are 100% correct. The sentence should read, "it is essential to the police to be in good standing with the community." If a significant percentage of the public, or even a highly motivated small minority is actively opposing the police then their job is impossible to perform.
Common sense and simple numbers show this to be true, and it is amply confirmed by historical experience here and in other countries. Does anyone really think even 100 police officers wearing whatever body armor they have and carrying carbines could effectively hold off any significant number of irate civilians? We all just saw what really happens long before any shots are even fired when perhaps 400 or so armed civilians showed up in Nevada. And even though that situation ended peacefully the overall dispute was apparently sufficient to trigger the murder of several police officers subsequently by a couple of deranged anti-police individuals.
A quick look at any country suffering serious civil strife shows that the police are very quickly rendered ineffective, regardless of whether they are heavily armed or not.
Police depend on community support and cooperation, and must have that to function.
Imprisoning more people and executing murderers hasn't reduced crime (since the 50's) either, so maybe we should let them all out.
as long as the cops are not in good standing with thugs
Heck, having the world’s largest military budget did not prevent 9/11, so maybe we should disband the Defense Department. You get the drift...
Since it doesn't work, as your own stats and comments acknowledge, it's time to do something different.
Starting with cutting off funding to buy lethal equipment for local, state, and federal employees.
/johnny
You have it backwards arguing against the militarization of police means that more power & more accountability goes to city /town/state governments not federal authorities.
The federal govt. is using the offer of federal military equipment as the thin edge of a wedge to get local leo’s to work for “multi-jurisdiction task forces with the Feds in charge doling out money from confiscation of property that is sold at auction .
This is not only a militarization of policing problem but a law enforcement for profit problem as well.
Your premise is wrong, but if it were then there would be little reason for the police to be armed. In the overwhelming majority of interactions between police and other people firearms are not needed. How often do you think the average police officer fires his weapon at another person? Rarely, if ever.
The overwhelming majority of people in the country obey the law and don't need intimidation by an armed person.
Police defeat actual criminals by their ability to call reinforcements, their ability to gather information, and their ability to detain suspects. Rarely do they need their weapons, and when they do very rarely do they need more than a sidearm.
So what would you have law enforcement carry to defend themselves against attack?
Wet noodles?
Law enforcement meant exactly that: enforcing the application of the law, not protecting people. The role of the sheriff in rural America wasn't to patrol his jurisdiction and protect the people who lived there. It was to apprehend an accused criminal and protect said criminal from an armed citizenry who were hell-bent on exacting their own justice before the accused criminal was convicted in a court of law. In other words, the whole social order was built on the assumption that the "civilians" were at least as well armed as the "police" -- and certainly outnumbered them.
The intel organizations, they screwed the pooch, and needed (and still need) to be fixed or disbanded if they can't be fixed.
/johnny
Why not start by emptying the prisons? Why not decriminalize theft, rape, murder and so on? Surely the appeal of crime lies not in material gain or the satisfaction of violent urges, but the illicit thrill of breaking the law. Make the conduct legal, take away that thrill and the tragically-misguided will surely walk the straight and narrow.
It is a complex issue.
Good point.
I want to disarm most police, except for small, specialized units that are allowed to be armed.
What you are doing isn't working. Stop doing that. It's not a difficult concept.
And as people get tired of a militarized police force, that will happen, whether the gear queers like it or not.
They get issued gear. Gear paid by appropriations made by politicians elected by the people.
It won't be fast, but American cops will get de-militarized, whether they like it or not.
/johnny
Police are not military. They shouldn't be armed like military.
It's only complex if you have a budget to defend. And an appropriations committee can wipe that budget out when the taxpayers get loud enough.
/johnny
You assume incorrectly. I was addressing everybody at this forum, in my reply to which you wrote.
In my earlier reply to the article, it is obvious that I wrote regarding the author and did not mention you.
In your particular case and in your particular life, I wish you well, and that police power - but especially corruption in “the system” (in whatever country you may be) - fails to “collect” you, as it has the young Marine south of the border.
If you are impressed with notions that a police power will not be used against you, I wish that you learn the easy way, not the hard way, of your error.
Thank you.
Ironic that the two have switched: militarized police, and 'display purpose only' military.
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.