Jump to content
johnott

Article: Rise of the Warrior Cop

Recommended Posts

High Exposure: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. You said..."training and equipment that has been found to be effective by the Military in the current war are just that. Effective". So you are claiming that using Military War Tactics doesn't make you militarized in any way? I don't see your point.

 

I have no problem with Tactics and Technology when they are used against the "bad guys" in extreme situations such as, hostage situations, terrorism, etc. But it doesn't stop there. It is becoming the way to deal with every situation.

 

So, is everything permissible as long as the end justifies the means?

 

The military uses radios and convoys when traveling long distances. So do truck drivers, are they militarized?

 

The military has developed new flame resistant clothing to battle the IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Fire Depts now use the same gear, are they militarized?

 

The Fire Dept also has rank, a chain of command, and they salute, wait... So do the Boy Scouts. Are they also militarized?

 

Are trauma Doctors in local hospitals (who also have a chain of command) that are using the knowledge, equipment and techniques gained by military Doctors treating all of the wounded they see militarized?

 

Why should we not use TTPs that we know work? Should we throw them out and reinvent the wheel just because the Military uses them too?

 

In fact, the Military had to take a lot of TTPs from SWAT teams when they started getting heavy in CQB with such restrictive rules of engagement in Iraq and their job vecame more of a Police role with capturing insurgents a priority instead of just killing them. So, does that mean that the Military is "SWATerized"?

 

Militarization is not about equipment, TTPs, or uniforms.

 

Police have constitutional use of force guidelines to follow, while the military has rules of engagement. You might think that sounds like splitting hairs, but it is a pretty significant distinction. The Military (Military Police aside) doesn't have the need to conduct Miranda, no authority to arrest, or to go by the 4th or 5th amendment. They follow UCMJ not NJSA 2C or title 39.

 

To clarify my earlier statement. I have nothing against SWAT. Police force personnel (in general) are becoming more "SWAT-like" even though they are not on a SWAT team themselves. It seems everyone is emulating SWAT or Special OPs in some way or another. The average citizen has a hard time telling who is who. From the front, SWAT, DHS, FDA, ICE, etc. all look alike. People dressed in Camo or black with helmets, vests and AR type rifles and handguns strapped to their thigh. It looks like we are dealing with the military rather than the police.

I do have a problem with units (Narco, gang and robbery units particularly) conducting SWAT operations. They try to do the work without the selection process necessary to ensure the proper mindset for team members, without the continuing training and development, the don't follow the high standards for marksmanship and tactical thinking, they go in without the very specific knowledge of search & seizure and use of force that is very particular to SWAT work, and worst of all, the lack the attention to detail that goes in to planning and executing these types of jobs.

 

When these guys get involved, thats when you have the wrong house hit. That's when you have and unprofessional job with a bad use of force outcome. I wouldn't try to do an undercover buy, or conduct a stakeout, or wear a wire. That is out of my league and that skillset is not in my wheelhouse. If I tried to do it, I can guarantee that would make a bungling mess of it and leave the other guys holding a leaky bag, so why are they trying to do mine?

 

What the real SWAT guys look like shouldn't matter as long as they get the job done right. The tools of the trade are just that, tools - an M4 works for a soldier and a Cop alike right, so what is the big deal? That is the same argument the anti's use - "It looks scary. It looks like a military gun. They shouldn't have it." Well, which is it? Is it the guns that are bad because of how they look, or is it the way they are used? If we carried Mini-14s would that be better? How many different ways are there to make effective body armor? How different can you make it? Should we change the shape of the helmets? Should we wear Hot Pink armor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, you realize that most of the instances where what you are talking about occurs, including the very first one mentioned by the author in his hit-piece, was not a SWAT team right?

 

Yes, I do but therein lies the problem. We have an increasing number of swat-lite police forces who act as swat when they are not trained at that level and default to their idea of high speed low drag even when the situation doesn't call for it.  In short the armed raid should be exception not the default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify my earlier statement. I have nothing against SWAT. Police force personnel (in general) are becoming more "SWAT-like" even though they are not on a SWAT team themselves. It seems everyone is emulating SWAT or Special OPs in some way or another. The average citizen has a hard time telling who is who. From the front, SWAT, DHS, FDA, ICE, etc. all look alike. People dressed in Camo or black with helmets, vests and AR type rifles and handguns strapped to their thigh. It looks like we

are dealing with the military rather than the police.

Is this not the same argument against "assault weapons"? They look scary so ban them?

 

Who cares what pants they are wearing and where they wear they're pistol? Isn't it military-like to have a couple thousand guys (and girls) wearing the same old blue uni's with hats, guns, badges and batons?

 

Its not the guys wearing camo that bothers me. If they start doing house to house searches just to "make sure" we are following the law or something to that effect is where we (I) will have a problem.

 

I get that there are things happening around the US that are overstepping and I agree. It is our job to hold those specific people or their bosses accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military uses radios and convoys when traveling long distances. So do truck drivers, are they militarized? (IMO anything that can be readily identifiable as having a military component to it is in fact "military like". Just as if you are dressed for war you are "warrior-like".)

 

The military has developed new flame resistant clothing to battle the IED threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Fire Depts now use the same gear, are they militarized?

 

The Fire Dept also has rank, a chain of command, and they salute, wait... So do the Boy Scouts. Are they also militarized?

 

Are trauma Doctors in local hospitals (who also have a chain of command) that are using the knowledge, equipment and techniques gained by military Doctors treating all of the wounded they see militarized?

 

Why should we not use TTPs that we know work? Should we throw them out and reinvent the wheel just because the Military uses them too?

(The above examples are technically true except for one big distinction... none of them are using LETHAL force on another individual. None of those examples are weaponized groups.)

 

In fact, the Military had to take a lot of TTPs from SWAT teams when they started getting heavy in CQB with such restrictive rules of engagement in Iraq and their job vecame more of a Police role with capturing insurgents a priority instead of just killing them. So, does that mean that the Military is "SWATerized"? (Yes.)

 

Militarization is not about equipment, TTPs, or uniforms. (Then what does militarization mean to you?)

 

Police have constitutional use of force guidelines to follow, while the military has rules of engagement. You might think that sounds like splitting hairs, but it is a pretty significant distinction. The Military (Military Police aside) doesn't have the need to conduct Miranda, no authority to arrest, or to go by the 4th or 5th amendment. They follow UCMJ not NJSA 2C or title 39. (Never said they didn't.)

 

I do have a problem with units (Narco, gang and robbery units particularly) conducting SWAT operations. They try to do the work without the selection process necessary to ensure the proper mindset for team members, without the continuing training and development, the don't follow the high standards for marksmanship and tactical thinking, they go in without the very specific knowledge of search & seizure and use of force that is very particular to SWAT work, and worst of all, the lack the attention to detail that goes in to planning and executing these types of jobs.(This and...

 

When these guys get involved, thats when you have the wrong house hit. That's when you have and unprofessional job with a bad use of force outcome. I wouldn't try to do an undercover buy, or conduct a stakeout, or wear a wire. That is out of my league and that skillset is not in my wheelhouse. If I tried to do it, I can guarantee that would make a bungling mess of it and leave the other guys holding a leaky bag, so why are they trying to do mine? This.  Is what I am talking about. I Agree.)

 

What the real SWAT guys look like shouldn't matter as long as they get the job done right. The tools of the trade are just that, tools - an M4 works for a soldier and a Cop alike right, so what is the big deal? That is the same argument the anti's use - "It looks scary. It looks like a military gun. They shouldn't have it." Well, which is it? Is it the guns that are bad because of how they look, or is it the way they are used? If we carried Mini-14s would that be better? How many different ways are there to make effective body armor? How different can you make it? Should we change the shape of the helmets? Should we wear Hot Pink armor?  ( I never said I had a problem with SWAT in particular. I was referring to the Police at large and how the average citizen is having trouble making a distinction from all other branches of law enforcement... they are all starting to all look alike. And if they look alike and act alike then it looks as if they are everywhere. It looks as if the police as a whole are more military in function than ever before. If you are a Swat team member then you should understand the confusion and problems that this may have on the public.)

 

I don't know how this conversation got so focused on SWAT. My comments were never about singling out any specific group of law enforcement as the sole component of militarization. But as a  a veteran myself I think I know military-like functions and tactics when I see them. We seem to be arguing over semantics... if we could leave SWAT out of this for a moment we could get back to talking about the police force in general and other government agencies as a whole and the effect they are having on the general public and the perception that they are becoming more like the military than most Americans are used to seeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this not the same argument against "assault weapons"? They look scary so ban them?

 

Who cares what pants they are wearing and where they wear they're pistol? Isn't it military-like to have a couple thousand guys (and girls) wearing the same old blue uni's with hats, guns, badges and batons?

 

Its not the guys wearing camo that bothers me. If they start doing house to house searches just to "make sure" we are following the law or something to that effect is where we (I) will have a problem.

 

I get that there are things happening around the US that are overstepping and I agree. It is our job to hold those specific people or their bosses accountable.

 

I never said or implied anything on this thread be banned. But... If the public sees war footage from Afghanistan on the news and they see soldiers breaking down a door in an urban area, how are they supposed to differentiate that image with the one where they see police dressed similarly busting down someones door here? You can't say that appearances never count or that appearances don't mean anything. Police use appearance in part as a way to identify potential suspects. I think appearance and function are tied together at least when it comes to the issue of the "warrior cop". Part of the issue is based on visual perception and the other part based on factual news events. It's up to law enforcement to educate the public if their actions are being misinterpreted.

 

I get the feeling that "some" (not all) Leo's who done military style garb and weapons begin to feel like they are military and start to act military. In so far as, they are at war and that the civilian population is nothing more than potential enemy combatants.  I hope I am proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said or implied anything on this thread be banned. But... If the public sees war footage from Afghanistan on the news and they see soldiers breaking down a door in an urban area, how are they supposed to differentiate that image with the one where they see police dressed similarly busting down someones door here? You can't say that appearances never count or that appearances don't mean anything. Police use appearance in part as a way to identify potential suspects. I think appearance and function are tied together at least when it comes to the issue of the "warrior cop". Part of the issue is based on visual perception and the other part based on factual news events. It's up to law enforcement to educate the public if their actions are being misinterpreted.

 

I get the feeling that "some" (not all) Leo's who done military style garb and weapons begin to feel like they are military and start to act military. In so far as, they are at war and that the civilian population is nothing more than potential enemy combatants. I hope I am proven wrong.

I agree to your response to HE whereas we may be arguing semantics. I didn't meant to put words in your mouth, just responding to the specific things you posted about.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how this conversation got so focused on SWAT. My comments were never about singling out any specific group of law enforcement as the sole component of militarization. But as a a veteran myself I think I know military-like functions and tactics when I see them. We seem to be arguing over semantics... if we could leave SWAT out of this for a moment we could get back to talking about the police force in general and other government agencies as a whole and the effect they are having on the general public and the perception that they are becoming more like the military than most Americans are used to seeing.

 

The article that started this thread was anti-SWAT, specifically but was taking oranges and calling them apples.

 

As far as general police having "military type gear", or what I refer to as the right gear to do the job, all started, or became nocticeable, after Columbine and the development of the rapid response to active shooter initiative. The realization that Cops could no longer set a perimeter and wait for SWAT was a slap in the face for Law Enforcement everywhere. A mad dash to procure equipment and training was started and there was lots of free equipment to be had in the US Govt DRMO program, where old military gear is leant out to Police Departments for free.

 

SWAT teams are specialized units with specific tasks, and are generally pretty good at what they do. The problem is they may take some time to assemble and arrive at a crisis location. Sometimes that time lag between call out and response is unacceptable and the guys already on scene (patrol, traffic, detective, SRO, etc...) have to go and do it, or set a perimeter, or shoot it out.

 

I have been in schools in my county with 210 yard hallways (verified by laser range finder), in department stores, big box stores, shopping malls, and hospitals with 180 yard hallways and longer sight lines. The guys on the road need the right tools to accomplish this job. This means rifles. Should the road guys carry Mini-14s to be different, the SRO can carry a Remmy 7615 pump rifles, and traffic guys get shotguns (Oh wait, the military uses shotguns too... Scratch that) so as not to look to "militaristic"? Should they be required to hunt down or shoot it out with a rifle equipped bad guy with only their pistols? (No, wait, better make it revolvers since the military uses semi-auto pistols). We should only send the women cops to handle the aggressive stuff, since, until recently, the military uses the men. Where is the line drawn?

 

Looking like a warrior, "dressing for war" does not a warrior make. For example, an external bullet resistant vest is just plain more comfortable. It is cooler (temperature wise, not CDI-wise) and decreases the risk of back injury. But I shouldn't wear one, I should overheat and hurt my back, because it looks scary? It doesn't give me a 1000 yard stare, more "death power", or the overwhelming urge to trample your Constitutional rights. That is just silly. Looking like a CAG or ST6 guy doesn't make you a "Cool guy". A thigh rig and a slung rifle doesn't make you an 11b or 0311. Wearing a BDU type uniform doesnt make you a member of an invading army. It gives you a unifrom that can handle the rigors of a daily work schedule. It is just like owning what looks like a machine gun (M16) doesn't make it a machine gun (AR15).

 

"Militarization" is a a paradigm shift, a doctrine shift, where direct action missions takes over for an arrest warrant. Where the Geneva and Hague conventions along with ROE replace Constitutional Use of Force Guidlines. When Miranda doesn't apply, when the 5th amendment is removed from the equation. It has nothing to do with equipment or appearance and everything to do with doctrine and policy.

 

(The above examples are technically true except for one big distinction... none of them are using LETHAL force on another individual. None of those examples are weaponized groups.)

You say this as of people are being gunned down on the streets of Gloucester County like it is Fallijah. You say it like like Cops are using lethal force every 15 minutes. Yes, they have the authority to use deadly force to protect their own life or the lives of other people. That has always been the case. Should this change? Do you believe that Police should be stripped of the ability to use DPF to protect?

 

And while it may not be lethal force per sey, do Doctors and Firemen not exert some control over life and death of those under their care? Do they not use the tools, techinques, and technology derived from warfighting to protect, to save, to rescue? Do Cops not use these "militarized" weapons to protect others even while they are using lethal force on an aggressor? Isn't that the standard of whether or not DPF is a justified and appropriate response - "in protection of themselves and others"? Police are not just randomly shooting folks in their homes or in the streets. If DPF is used on someone, it is in the interest of protecting others.

 

It is intersting that you seem to keep pointing to the presence of weapons as the case for being too militaristic? What if I told you that more civilians own more military type firearms than all the Police Departments in the country combined (Look at the N. Hollywood shootout, LAPD had to go to a civilian gun store to obtain tools to stop the fight while waiting for SWAT) Does that mean that the residents of this nation are too militarized? (**** I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS **** just playing a little Devil's Advocate)

 

 

I never said or implied anything on this thread be banned. But... If the public sees war footage from Afghanistan on the news and they see soldiers breaking down a door in an urban area, how are they supposed to differentiate that image with the one where they see police dressed similarly busting down someones door here? You can't say that appearances never count or that appearances don't mean anything. Police use appearance in part as a way to identify potential suspects. I think appearance and function are tied together at least when it comes to the issue of the "warrior cop". Part of the issue is based on visual perception and the other part based on factual news events. It's up to law enforcement to educate the public if their actions are being misinterpreted.

This is not the world of 20 years ago. Hell it is not even the world of 5 years ago. Like it or not, unfortunately the "warrior Cop" has a place in our society just as the DARE officer, the SRO, or the Traffic Enforcement division. You need guys to who will run TO the sound of gunfire instead of away. Everyone bellyaches and moans that "The Police have no obligation to help anyone". That is correct, but we do anyway because we want to, bevause we are responsible, bevause if we dont, who will (and unfortunately in this state, who can)?Which Cop do you think is going to come running towards you when you are in danger when everyone else is running away? The guy with the training the equipment, and the mindset, that's who.

 

As far as educating the public, we can only do what we can do. Some people out there still think the world is flat, think Obama pays the welfare checks out of his own pocket, and think GZ got away with murder. I can't make people realize the distinction between soldiers kicking in a door in Afghanistan, in a foreign country with no Constitution, and Police Officers making an arrest down the block.

 

My hope is that fellow "gun" people, others that have the same "mindset", get it and help pass it along instead of promulgating this "militarized" BS.

 

I get the feeling that "some" (not all) Leo's who done military style garb and weapons begin to feel like they are military and start to act military. In so far as, they are at war and that the civilian population is nothing more than potential enemy combatants. I hope I am proven wrong.

What does "act Military" mean? Most Cops do not see the residents in their town or the population in general as "enemy combatants"? A healthy respect for the violence that some people are capable of is not the same as viewing every citizen we come into contact with as an "enemy combatant". But, believe it or not, some people actually want to kill us - for the Job we do, for the Uniform on our back, the Badge on our chest and the ideals we represent.

 

Do you know the biggest problem with Cops? They are selected from the human race with the same foibles, weaknesses, and bad characteristics as anyone else. You may have a few rotten apples in the bunch, just like some Priests are pedophiles, some Dr are rapists, and some maintenance men are thieves, some lawyers are scumbags, and some mailmen are burglars, but you shouldn't judge them all by the actions of the few.

Edited by High Exposure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many may disagree (and they will)... but i and many other believe they are just making the gradual transition to martial law... little by little the police become militarized and the laws stricter.. and one day you wake up and the constitution is gone and so are your rights.. and the (military) police are controlling your life...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rwmD4c_NxI&list=TLDGwNJoUCK4g ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many may disagree (and they will)... but i and many other believe they are just making the gradual transition to martial law... little by little the police become militarized and the laws stricter.. and one day you wake up and the constitution is gone and so are your rights.. and the (military) police are controlling your life...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rwmD4c_NxI&list=TLDGwNJoUCK4g ...

Wow. OK then...

 

Well, when it happens, look me up. Since you are a Devil's fan and I am a Devil's fan, just give me the "Hi" sign and I will get you extra rations while you are in the re-education camp. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and since now that I know you are on to us, you know I have to report this to my overlords right? Sorry bro, just doing my job... [/sarcasm]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. OK then...

 

Well, when it happens, look me up. Since you are a Devil's fan and I am a Devil's fan, just give me the "Hi" sign and I will get you extra rations while you are in the re-education camp. :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and since now that I know you are on to us, you know I have to report this to my overlords right? Sorry bro, just doing my job... [/sarcasm]

lol so i take it you see nothing wrong with the path this country is going down... drones?CISPA? NSA?DHS? everything is kool? ... i dont mean your average honest cop, hell alot of cops are 3%s ... but a large number like the ones who INVADED ppls homes in watertown mass ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot wrong with this Country. Lying politicians, f'ed up immigration, rampant welfare, hints of socialism (obamacare).... What I don't see is us headed towards re-education camps, martial law, and the suspension of the Constitution.

 

I also don't see what happened in MA as Cops invading homes during the search for a terrorist scumbag that was on the loose. You really think the Cops invaded to search people's homes for Illegal contraband or seditious material. Well then, why weren't there mass arrests? Why did the Cops leave after verifying that the terrorist scumbag wasn't there?

 

Hell, most people let the Cops in. How should it have been handled then?

 

You know what, nevermind... you believe what you believe, and I know I will never change your mind, so let's just agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's a set of hypothetical questions I want to ask each "side" here:

 

For those who oppose the "militarization" of police agencies, assume that in the next couple months a ballot initiative asks residents of your municipality to vote on whether or not you would approve of issuing all patrol officers in your area with level III armor plates and 5.56 rifles. Would you vote to allow it or deny it? Assume cost isn't a factor.

 

For LEOs here, we are hearing a lot of talk about bad apples. So let's assume that one of these bad apples shows up at your department. Let's say that it was found they planted marijuana during a traffic stop in an attempt to get an arrest on someone who was "probably guilty" after they found nothing during a search of the vehicle. Further investigation reveals that although no drugs other than those planted were in the vehicle, the suspect did have a record for possession. The officer had served 10 years in the department. Do you advocate for the termination of this officer?

 

While I typically hate hypothetical questions because real-life context can mean everything, I intend for these questions to get people thinking and, as I stated earlier, for people to be introspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot wrong with this Country. Lying politicians, f'ed up immigration, rampant welfare, hints of socialism (obamacare).... What I don't see is us headed towards re-education camps, martial law, and the suspension of the Constitution.

 

FEMA camps no, because we didn't even have those when I lived in a actual communist country. A slow deterioration of civil liberties, one drop at a time, until all you have left is some vague notion that it is mostly academic, yes. It has happened all over Europe (over and over actually), and it is happening here. You don't need camps, people become prisoners in their own homes because it is just easier then going out and dealing with all the laws.  I've seen it in Eastern Europe, and I've seen it this summer in Germany, by dark everyone was inside with the shades drawn and you hardly saw a soul on the street but a few people in restaurants. It was bizarre so I asked around if this was a local thing, and the answer was a shoulder shrug and various version of "to much bs to bother". You can't park where you need to be, you can't drive your car were you need to go, you can't walk too slow because someone may think you are up to no good. I found the whole thing extremely bizarre, but then I remembered that in the UK where they have invented the notion of your home is your castle you are now going to jail for beating someone who broke in.  

 

As I said before, you can tell me that body armor is more comfy and a rifle is a better weapon, and I'm not disagreeing but how long before you look like robocop with little to distinguish you as a human? I mean I know Detroit went bust and OCP might step in anyday, but what a lot of the public has been telling you in this thread is that all of these things are perceived by us the public as militarization. It doesn't matter if you don't agree, it is how we who pay your salary view it

 

You know what, nevermind... you believe what you believe, and I know I will never change your mind, so let's just agree to disagree.

 

And that is the attitude I have been pointing out will only make things worse. If we don't talk to each other we will increasingly see you as a representative of a an oppressive government and because most of the people you deal with are scum you will increasingly see the rest of us as scum as well, because that is who you deal with and you won't like it when we give you the evil eye because we don't like your gear or a nuisance ticket or whatever your mayor will ask you to do to raise money.

 

 

You know there was something else I was thinking about.  If you are a police officer you should have in your mind a line you will not cross when ordered to. I don't care where you draw that line. I don't care if it is gun confiscation in a hurricane (my cop buddy in Louisiana swears that no local cop did that, but out of state cops and he said NJ) or if is taking someones child over homeschooling or whatever. You should know what your line is. You don't have to share it with me, but if you haven't thought about where that line is and what you will do when asked to cross it, you really really should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot wrong with this Country. Lying politicians, f'ed up immigration, rampant welfare, hints of socialism (obamacare).... What I don't see is us headed towards re-education camps, martial law, and the suspension of the Constitution.

 

I also don't see what happened in MA as Cops invading homes during the search for a terrorist scumbag that was on the loose. You really think the Cops invaded to search people's homes for Illegal contraband or seditious material. Well then, why weren't there mass arrests? Why did the Cops leave after verifying that the terrorist scumbag wasn't there?

 

Hell, most people let the Cops in. How should it have been handled then?

 

You know what, nevermind... you believe what you believe, and I know I will never change your mind, so let's just agree to disagree.

because it was a drill gauging the public response to martial law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

many may disagree (and they will)... but i and many other believe they are just making the gradual transition to martial law... little by little the police become militarized and the laws stricter.. and one day you wake up and the constitution is gone and so are your rights.. and the (military) police are controlling your life...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rwmD4c_NxI&list=TLDGwNJoUCK4g ...

There is certainly at least some truth to this - esp. NJ...I wonder if the rise in the police state (no matter how far along the curve we may be) is tied to the rise of socializm here and around the globe? Certainly we would all agree that living "free" is becoming incremently more difficult as every year goes by. We can argue the magnitude, but I think most here would agree about the direction. So is there a conection BTWN the two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's a set of hypothetical questions I want to ask each "side" here:

 

For those who oppose the "militarization" of police agencies, assume that in the next couple months a ballot initiative asks residents of your municipality to vote on whether or not you would approve of issuing all patrol officers in your area with level III armor plates and 5.56 rifles. Would you vote to allow it or deny it? Assume cost isn't a factor.

 

For LEOs here, we are hearing a lot of talk about bad apples. So let's assume that one of these bad apples shows up at your department. Let's say that it was found they planted marijuana during a traffic stop in an attempt to get an arrest on someone who was "probably guilty" after they found nothing during a search of the vehicle. Further investigation reveals that although no drugs other than those planted were in the vehicle, the suspect did have a record for possession. The officer had served 10 years in the department. Do you advocate for the termination of this officer?

 

While I typically hate hypothetical questions because real-life context can mean everything, I intend for these questions to get people thinking and, as I stated earlier, for people to be introspective.

 

For those who oppose the "militarization" of police agencies, assume that in the next couple months a ballot initiative asks residents of your municipality to vote on whether or not you would approve of issuing all patrol officers in your area with level III armor plates and 5.56 rifles. Would you vote to allow it or deny it? Assume cost isn't a factor.

 

 

I'd have to think about it more, but my going in position is as long as I can legally have them I am generally OK with it....My starting view is if the cops need this stuff I may too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of hypotheticals, and a line that one may not cross, I'd like to know if they ban ARs, or limit your guns to say 5 round mags, or pass any other significant anti law either nationally (unlikely) or in NJ (still TBD - especially if we get a Liberal Governer some day), would the Police-Professionals here enforce these laws against private citizans in NJ? (This is certainly related to this discussion beacuse if nothing else, disarming citizens - even incrementally, makes the police that much more militaristic compared to the lower level of civilian capability).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have a second Right now, but I want to address this:

And that is the attitude I have been pointing out will only make things worse. If we don't talk to each other we will increasingly see you as a representative of a an oppressive government and because most of the people you deal with are scum you will increasingly see the rest of us as scum as well, because that is who you deal with and you won't like it when we give you the evil eye because we don't like your gear or a nuisance ticket or whatever your mayor will ask you to do to raise money.

I'd like to think I'm pretty open to discussion on all topics. I attempt to be fairly transparent in what I write, And make every effort to try to communicate with everyone on this board as clearly as possible. I will discuss and debate with anyone about anything if it is something I feel strongly about, and have a frame of reference with which to discuss intelligently.

 

However, a man has to know his limitations.

 

Getting into a debate about the militarization of police with someone that believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and the Boston Marathon bombings were a test run for martial law is futile and a waste of time.

 

That doesn't mean I am shut off from discourse or that I am a representative of an oppressive government. That just means that I am too smart to get into an argument where I will get dragged down to their level and beaten by their experience. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to take an open dialog and turn into shit. Would you guys take your theory/counter-theory to a different thread so maybe we can continue a conversation that might help us all get along better instead of growing the distance between police and the rest?

 

PS: this isn't addressed to the cops posting here. To you guys all I can say is both sides have their extremes. I know some cops who would never post here because they think anyone not blue is subhuman, I shit you not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is being discussed on Huckabee right now with the author of a book called A Government of Wolves.. Will repeat tomorrow night at 2000 on Fox News.

 

Yep, Huckabee with John W. Whitehead.

Maybe someone here can record this tomorrow?  The segment isn't long, maybe ten minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only have a second Right now, but I want to address this:

I'd like to think I'm pretty open to discussion on all topics. I attempt to be fairly transparent in what I write, And make every effort to try to communicate with everyone on this board as clearly as possible. I will discuss and debate with anyone about anything if it is something I feel strongly about, and have a frame of reference with which to discuss intelligently.

 

However, a man has to know his limitations.

 

Getting into a debate about the militarization of police with someone that believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and the Boston Marathon bombings were a test run for martial law is futile and a waste of time.

 

That doesn't mean I am shut off from discourse or that I am a representative of an oppressive government. That just means that I am too smart to get into an argument where I will get dragged down to their level and beaten by their experience. ;)

you and I don't agree all the time but this time sir I am with you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hypothetically speaking, since we know active shooter response teams were formed for things like Columbine, etc.  and most pro-2A supporters have pointed out, an armed society is a polite society and the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  By empowering the American populous to defend themselves in such situations could an argument be made that the complete removal of gun free zones and 50 state reciprocity of conceal carry permits drastically reduce (not eliminate) the need for such teams?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting into a debate about the militarization of police with someone that believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and the Boston Marathon bombings were a test run for martial law is futile and a waste of time.

 

I agree, but looking at it from outside the circle of debate provides an excellent source of comic entertainment

I have a cousin that came to me with a copy of the 9/11 conspiracy video, tried not to, but couldn't help laughing in his face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That just means that I am too smart to get into an argument where I will get dragged down to their level and beaten by their experience.  ;)

 

A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

 

But since that is the name of the game I suppose;

 

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

 

But I'm also a fan of Mark Twain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well while we are on quotes I have a few I think apply lol

 

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. Friedrich Nietzsche

 

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. Friedrich Nietzsche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...