Trooper video ain't over yet

[Combat Auto 174]

^^^^^????

 

maybe, i missed it, with all the posts..is there any evidence that vets as cops (statistically) exhibit the issue you state (don't care about a few one-offs, want to see a trend).

 

I for one, if I had to be stoped, would rather have a cop w/former military do it because he will generally be more mature then a cop his same age who didn't serve in military (all things equal of course).

[leahcim 680]

I got a ticket for that before. "Excessive execration" I beat it in court though. Tires didn't break loose and I didn't break the speed limit. Another time in cherry hill I got pulled over because "I didn't have to make all that noise." When I was getting up to speed pulling into traffic. My stang is loud but I wasn't in full throttle.

I have never seen an acceleration limit posted.  If I am driving under the speed limit I can get a ticket for exceeding an acceleration limit?

Do those radar guns calculate the second derivative???

[jrfly3006 42]

Just to clarify, although I thought it was pretty clear; the above is how I think it should be, for the reasons I stated. The 5 year wait I proposed, is so that former military have sufficient time to realign their brains to a more peaceful civilian way of thinking. The idea is to wring as much "soldier" out of them, and their attitudes/actions/mindset as possible, before unleashing them on the domestic civilian population as law enforcement. As has been discussed before, the way a soldier can/does/should act in a "combat" zone, interacting with the local civilians, is very different from what is appropriate for a civilian law enforcement officer. Allowing former soldiers to become involved in civilian law enforcement, before the "soldier"' has been removed from their brains, is what leads to the rampant and inappropriate militarization of law enforcement.

 

As for the "special" teams" thing. Again, see above. "Regular" law enforcement, interacting with the public on daily basis, should not be engaging in the training and tactics, nor have the weaponry, of a military unit. My post about the "special" teams, is to recognize that, in some VERY limited circumstances, those aforementioned "military" style tactics may be needed, such as in a "LA bank robbery" or "Virginia Tech Shooting" type of scenario. But, those are far and few between. I think it would be best to "insulate" the "normal" cops, who deal with the public on a daily basis, from being exposed to the "military mindset" and attitudes that such a team would likely have, which is also why those teams should be excluded from routine daily police work.(and to keep them away from citizens) (Perhaps these "special" teams might be an allowable exception to the "no former soldiers" rule?). Think of the "special" teams as vicious trained attack dogs, and the "regular" cops as your friendly family pet. You probably want to keep your viscous attack dog chained and muzzled, until needed; as well as separated from the family pets.

 

I hope that makes my idea/opinion/"proposal" as clear as possible.

you should present your "proposals" to the local VFW and see where that goes..

[gunguy1960 2]

When the folks who are always right, meet another group of people that are always right, well yes, I wasnt there, but damn, that was funny as all hell, the steady streams of obscenities was icing on the cake. LEO wives, please dont let your husbands leave the house so frustrated, for everyones sake!

[Contrvlr 17]

Just to clarify, although I thought it was pretty clear; the above is how I think it should be, for the reasons I stated. The 5 year wait I proposed, is so that former military have sufficient time to realign their brains to a more peaceful civilian way of thinking. The idea is to wring as much "soldier" out of them, and their attitudes/actions/mindset as possible, before unleashing them on the domestic civilian population as law enforcement. As has been discussed before, the way a soldier can/does/should act in a "combat" zone, interacting with the local civilians, is very different from what is appropriate for a civilian law enforcement officer. Allowing former soldiers to become involved in civilian law enforcement, before the "soldier"' has been removed from their brains, is what leads to the rampant and inappropriate militarization of law enforcement.

 

 

I guess they're the one's you might worry about becoming domestic terrorists  

How do you feel about our National Guard ?

[henrym 19]

 Who needs evidence to support their position. It sounds good

 

 

words to live by--Bryan Miller

[carguy3j 0]

^^^^^????

 

maybe, i missed it, with all the posts..is there any evidence that vets as cops (statistically) exhibit the issue you state (don't care about a few one-offs, want to see a trend).

 

I for one, if I had to be stoped, would rather have a cop w/former military do it because he will generally be more mature then a cop his same age who didn't serve in military (all things equal of course).

Yes, there may very well be some validity to your point. However, there is still the opposite side of the coin, being the importation of military training/tactics/and weapons into an organization that is not supposed to be behave in a militaristic fashion.  Sure, he may be "mature" and calm in your routine traffic stop, but is he transferring more aggressive military skills/attidues to his co-workers in training sessions or even informal interaction?

of course not..the usuals post without evidence to their point. Even without knowledge about their point a lot of times. Who needs evidence to support their position. It soinds good

It is an OPINION. I did not claim to post an absolute fact, and not back it up. However, I am in the process of doing some research to find what you ask. I suspect it will take the better part of the day, But I will respond to either admit I could find no such evidence, or to post a link to it. Relax. 

 

 

you should present your "proposals" to the local VFW and see where that goes..

Like any large group of people, I imagine there would be varying opinions. Some will agree. Some will mildly disagree. Some will call for my head on a pike, literally.

As a whole though, I would expect that organization to be opposed to my idea/proposal. No surprise there. They are an organization by/for veterans. of course they will mostly look out for/stand by their own. No different then expecting a teachers union to be receptive to pay cuts, or the expecting the AMA to endorse expansion of homeopathic medicine. Any group by/for a specific subset of society is, by its very nature, going to support that subset, even if to the detriment of others outside that subset.

 

So, yeah, the VFW wouldn't like it. That doesn't really have any bearing, one way or the other, on the value of the idea.

 

 

I guess they're the one's you might worry about becoming domestic terrorists  

How do you feel about our National Guard ?

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply? I'm not being anti-soldier/military, if that is your point. I have nothing against the military. I just think, and the constitution agrees, that the military and domestic law enforcement are two separate functions, with different roles/goals/rules/methodology, and that they are meant to always remain separate, for good reason. (most of which, at least historically speaking, has little to do with the current "militarization" of domestic law enforcement)

 

However, since you dangled the bait, I'll nibble. In regards to the "domestic terrorist" point, do you count gangs?

 

From the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs.htm    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military

 

http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/7465232.html

 

What's to stop these guys from using their veteran status to become cops? That could be very bad.

[Contrvlr 17]

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to imply? I'm not being anti-soldier/military, if that is your point. I have nothing against the military. I just think, and the constitution agrees, that the military and domestic law enforcement are two separate functions, with different roles/goals/rules/methodology, and that they are meant to always remain separate, for good reason. (most of which, at least historically speaking, has little to do with the current "militarization" of domestic law enforcement)

 

I agree, I give more credit to former military in regards to becoming LEO's, they're trained to deal with both the enemy and the civilian population. Call me naïve but  I have faith that there far fewer bad apples who can't make the distinction between them, than there are good guys

As far as militarization; tactics, tools and clothing have progressed, those being used as an argument are like anti's saying we the people should only have muskets

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

However, since you dangled the bait, I'll nibble. In regards to the "domestic terrorist" point, do you count gangs?

 

From the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs.htm    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_presence_in_the_United_States_military

 

http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/7465232.html

 

What's to stop these guys from using their veteran status to become cops? That could be very bad.

 

Wasn't dangling bait, apologies that you took it that way, it was a reference to a line from the former head of DHS , Ms. J. Napolitano 

 

[Combat Auto 174]

Yes, there may very well be some validity to your point. However, there is still the opposite side of the coin, being the importation of military training/tactics/and weapons into an organization that is not supposed to be behave in a militaristic fashion.  Sure, he may be "mature" and calm in your routine traffic stop, but is he transferring more aggressive military skills/attidues to his co-workers in training sessions or even informal interaction?

I think your claim is purly conjecture (at best). Which is fine, this is the Internet, most of what is posted is opinion...If you have something tangable, or even antidodail if there are a few examples I would be very interested. I am all for avaoiding the SWAT-Cop mentality when it isn't needed.

 

Till then, hire the Veterens. There is no other group that has done so much for so many and recieved so little back...A young man/women who goes through the discipline, hard work (with extreemly low pay), travel (means being exposed to other cultures and ways of seeing the world), mega-responsibility, and maturity that Military service brings at such a young age - puts them head and shoulders above their civy counterparts (I know, I went through this transformation many decades ago. I choose to go to University after the military. I went from stright C's in High-school to straight A's at University. Yes, I was a few years older then other students, but from a maturity standpoint, I felt like I was surrounded by "Babys" :-)).

[Handyman 5,682]

Police used to be trained to not only to uphold the law, but to also solve problems and trouble-shoot situations.

 

Military used to be trained almost solely to do things designed to kill people.

 

When the line between these roles get blurry, I worry. Right now it seems we are teaching teams of cops to bash in doors in the middle of the night to serve a warrant for failure to provide child support. Meanwhile, drill instructors are not allowed to curse at recruits so they do not hurt anyone's self esteem.

 

But everyone is great, and I appreciate all your peerless bravery and service. Have a great Labor Day.

[Combat Auto 174]

 

 

[blksheep 466]

Police used to be trained to not only to uphold the law, but to also solve problems and trouble-shoot situations.

 

Military used to be trained almost solely to do things designed to kill people.

 

When the line between these roles get blurry, I worry. Right now it seems we are teaching teams of cops to bash in doors in the middle of the night to serve a warrant for failure to provide child support. Meanwhile, drill instructors are not allowed to curse at recruits so they do not hurt anyone's self esteem.

 

But everyone is great, and I appreciate all your peerless bravery and service. Have a great Labor Day.

You can't trouble shoot amymore because or solve problems because of sue happy lawyers and dare I say civil liberty types. So now you do the best you can.

 

And for the guy that does want regular cops to have any tactical training, that's fine. The next mass shooting in a school we will call the SWAT team that is an hour away to take care of the problem so you can feel safe and no lines are blurred.

 

As one member always says don't like how things are? Change em or move. I hear Syria is pretty nice this time of year.

[Vini 0]

In my experience former military guys are more disciplined, polite and have very clear understanding of chain of command. Goes to all fields of after military life including law enforcement. I would take ex-military LEO every time vs regular civilian one. 

 

carguy3j, have you had a lot of personal experience with ex-military people or your opinion based on Hollywood movies and TV shows?

[blksheep 466]

I would expect the latter.

[carguy3j 0]

Police used to be trained to not only to uphold the law, but to also solve problems and trouble-shoot situations.

 

Military used to be trained almost solely to do things designed to kill people.

 

When the line between these roles get blurry, I worry. Right now it seems we are teaching teams of cops to bash in doors in the middle of the night to serve a warrant for failure to provide child support. Meanwhile, drill instructors are not allowed to curse at recruits so they do not hurt anyone's self esteem.

 

But everyone is great, and I appreciate all your peerless bravery and service. Have a great Labor Day.

This^^^^

 

of course not..the usuals post without evidence to their point. Even without knowledge about their point a lot of times. Who needs evidence to support their position. It soinds good

 

I think your claim is purly conjecture (at best). Which is fine, this is the Internet, most of what is posted is opinion...If you have something tangable, or even antidodail if there are a few examples I would be very interested. I am all for avaoiding the SWAT-Cop mentality when it isn't needed.............................

As requested:

 

This is an academic research paper, based on a survey of actual law enforcement agencies, and with numerous "citations" of the data. Yes, its a bit dated (1997), but many serious studies and research is. The time needed to collect, organize, and analyze the data pretty much necessitates that such studies/research be done in a retrospective manner. :

http://cjmasters.eku.edu/sites/cjmasters.eku.edu/files/socialproblemsmilitar.pdf   While the whole paper is a good read, and addresses other contributing factors to the "militarization of police" problem,  pages 10, 11, and 12 most directly address the issue being debated here.

 

Of interest here is sections V, VI, and VII. Again, it speaks to both the dangers of military involvement with police, as well as other causes of the militarization trend. (Primarily the "Drug War" and the associated policies.)

http://www.davekopel.com/waco/lawrev/cansoldiersbepeaceofficers.htm

 

I'm sure I can find more, but I'm not writing a research paper. I will say that, perhaps, I overemphasized the role of the individual former soldier in the undesirable transformation of domestic law enforcement into a more paramilitary organization.

 

Nonetheless, I stand behind the basic principle of my original position. Former soldiers in law enforcement don't appear to be THE cause of the militarization of police. But, they are undoubtedly a contributing factor, to some extent. Of greater impact/causation, would appear to be the "Drug War" and associated policies, and more recently, the "War on Terror" and its associated policies; including the increasing availability of money and equipment for law enforcement to acquire and use military training/tactics and equipment.

 

Just a few commenting on this:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/milpol.htm

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/frightening-new-reason-to-fear-police/

[blksheep 466]

"I think your claim is purly conjecture (at best). Which is fine, this is the Internet, most of what is posted is opinion...If you have something tangable, or even antidodail if there are a few examples I would be very interested. I am all for avaoiding the SWAT-Cop mentality when it isn't needed.

 

Till then, hire the Veterens. There is no other group that has done so much for so many and recieved so little back...A young man/women who goes through the discipline, hard work (with extreemly low pay), travel (means being exposed to other cultures and ways of seeing the world), mega-responsibility, and maturity that Military service brings at such a young age - puts them head and shoulders above their civy counterparts (I know, I went through this transformation many decades ago. I choose to go to University after the military. I went from stright C's in High-school to straight A's at University. Yes, I was a few years older then other students, but from a maturity standpoint, I felt like I was surrounded by "Baby's" :-)).

I would agree with most of your post, however I have met many service men and women that go against your statements and couldn't solve what exit to take to get out of a paper bag. Before I get crap for this, I am a military brat that grew up on base and lived there a long time. I have seen it all. I know "veterans" that should not be issued a pencil let alone a gun and badge.

 

I'll take common sense and courage over a degree and military experience any day.

[Combat Auto 174]

This^^^^

 

 

As requested:

 

This is an academic research paper, based on a survey of actual law enforcement agencies, and with numerous "citations" of the data. Yes, its a bit dated (1997), but many serious studies and research is. The time needed to collect, organize, and analyze the data pretty much necessitates that such studies/research be done in a retrospective manner. :

http://cjmasters.eku.edu/sites/cjmasters.eku.edu/files/socialproblemsmilitar.pdf   While the whole paper is a good read, and addresses other contributing factors to the "militarization of police" problem,  pages 10, 11, and 12 most directly address the issue being debated here.

 

Of interest here is sections V, VI, and VII. Again, it speaks to both the dangers of military involvement with police, as well as other causes of the militarization trend. (Primarily the "Drug War" and the associated policies.)

http://www.davekopel.com/waco/lawrev/cansoldiersbepeaceofficers.htm

 

I'm sure I can find more, but I'm not writing a research paper. I will say that, perhaps, I overemphasized the role of the individual former soldier in the undesirable transformation of domestic law enforcement into a more paramilitary organization.

 

Nonetheless, I stand behind the basic principle of my original position. Former soldiers in law enforcement don't appear to be THE cause of the militarization of police. But, they are undoubtedly a contributing factor, to some extent. Of greater impact/causation, would appear to be the "Drug War" and associated policies, and more recently, the "War on Terror" and its associated policies; including the increasing availability of money and equipment for law enforcement to acquire and use military training/tactics and equipment.

 

Just a few commenting on this:

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~marto/milpol.htm

http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/frightening-new-reason-to-fear-police/

We need to be specific...When you say "former solders", how do you define this? (ie all veterens; only veterens from specific branches of the military: Ie army, navy, marines, AirF; only solders that actually were in combat?; some other parameter?)...The answer to this is very important to the credibility of your assertion.

[Combat Auto 174]

I would agree with most of your post, however I have met many service men and women that go against your statements and couldn't solve what exit to take to get out of a paper bag. Before I get crap for this, I am a military brat that grew up on base and lived there a long time. I have seen it all. I know "veterans" that should not be issued a pencil let alone a gun and badge.

 

I'll take common sense and courage over a degree and military experience any day.

There are always exceptions to any statistical type phenomina...But militart service is an excellent "first-filter" to picking an employee (sure, if you found out he was disonerable discharged; or he went in a buck-private and came out a buck privite - you would dig alot further)...Also, you can measure common scense to some degree in a short amount of time, not sure how an employee would measure courage. Military service takes courage. Things like Peace Corp takes courage. Sailing across the atlantic solo takes courage :-)...So again, being a Veteren scores points in the courage dimension also.

[blksheep 466]

There are always exceptions to any statistical type phenomina...But militart service is an excellent "first-filter" to picking an employee (sure, if you found out he was disonerable discharged; or he went in a buck-private and came out a buck privite - you would dig alot further).

Totally agree.

[carguy3j 0]

We need to be specific...When you say "former solders", how do you define this? (ie all veterens; only veterens from specific branches of the military: Ie army, navy, marines, AirF; only solders that actually were in combat?; some other parameter?)...The answer to this is very important to the credibility of your assertion.

Good point.  I would say that the area of greatest concern would be soldiers with actual combat experience, and/or substantial training in aggressive/violent action. I'm not worried about a supply clerk who has never been deployed outside the US, a KC-135 pilot, a mechanic on an aircraft carrier,etc.... On the other hand, an infantryman fresh off a couple of tours patrolling the streets of Afghanistan would be more troubling, as he has been conditioned to think and act in a highly aggressive manner, to any perceived threat, and in a way that is wholly inappropriate for routine domestic police work. Add in the possibility of PTSD, and it becomes more troubling. Also, regardless of combat action, a Special Forces or Navy SEAL trained individual is probably also going to be an issue, simply because of the entire culture those groups eat/breathe/sleep. Again, not bashing them. Its great, for what they are trained to do/be as soldiers. But, its not compatible with domestic law enforcement.

 

We could be here all day hashing the complexities and various exceptions/conditions and various bureaucrat-speak which would be needed for any appropriate actual regulation. Again, I will willingly admit that my initial statement was over broad. Not ALL former military should be kept out of civilian law enforcement. But, again, I will stand by the general idea that at least SOME fairly broad classifications / MOS's should be restricted/prohibited from doing so, at least for certain period following separation from the military.

 

Again, as I said in my last post, I was mistaken to indicate a focus solely on them as an issue. Yes, it is a concern. BUT, if we first take away the military "toys" from the police; such as APCs, TANKS!, grenade launchers, prohibit them from wearing military uniforms, end most no-knock military style "dynamic" entries,etc.... then maybe that will make a big impact on its own. 

[Combat Auto 174]

Good point.  I would say that the area of greatest concern would be soldiers with actual combat experience, and/or substantial training in aggressive/violent action. I'm not worried about a supply clerk who has never been deployed outside the US, a KC-135 pilot, a mechanic on an aircraft carrier,etc.... On the other hand, an infantryman fresh off a couple of tours patrolling the streets of Afghanistan would be more troubling, as he has been conditioned to think and act in a highly aggressive manner, to any perceived threat, and in a way that is wholly inappropriate for routine domestic police work. Add in the possibility of PTSD, and it becomes more troubling. Also, regardless of combat action, a Special Forces or Navy SEAL trained individual is probably also going to be an issue, simply because of the entire culture those groups eat/breathe/sleep. Again, not bashing them. Its great, for what they are trained to do/be as soldiers. But, its not compatible with domestic law enforcement.

 

We could be here all day hashing the complexities and various exceptions/conditions and various bureaucrat-speak which would be needed for any appropriate actual regulation. Again, I will willingly admit that my initial statement was over broad. Not ALL former military should be kept out of civilian law enforcement. But, again, I will stand by the general idea that at least SOME fairly broad classifications / MOS's should be restricted/prohibited from doing so, at least for certain period following separation from the military.

 

Again, as I said in my last post, I was mistaken to indicate a focus solely on them as an issue. Yes, it is a concern. BUT, if we first take away the military "toys" from the police; such as APCs, TANKS!, grenade launchers, prohibit them from wearing military uniforms, end most no-knock military style "dynamic" entries,etc.... then maybe that will make a big impact on its own. 

No Problem my Friend - good discussion...Yep, the overwhelming majority of Military jobs have absolutly nothing to do with combativeness...And outside the Army and Marines, most branches do little to no tactical-combat training...Even in the Army, ouside the infantry same statement holds to a large extent...The Marines are well, Marines! ;-) (and of course each branch has their Special Ops/Seal types but that is a very, very small %.) - So hire them (Qualified) Vets!

[bennj 215]

Just saw the video, whole lot of testosterone flowing there. You would think somebody would have had the sense (and maturity) to back off. I do see the trooper's point about impersonators though. Oh for the days of Andy Griffith and Mayberry.

[BlueLineFish 615]

Just saw the video, whole lot of testosterone flowing there. You would think somebody would have had the sense (and maturity) to back off. I do see the trooper's point about impersonators though. Oh for the days of Andy Griffith and Mayberry.

Too bad we dont live in those times anymore. People need to wake up and stop making comparisons to the good old days of Andy Griffith like they are relevant to today.

[blksheep 466]

Wasnt that a TV show?

 

 

If that's the case they think everone is like Vick Mackey.lol.

[bennj 215]

BluelineFish,

With all due respect, I realize that Andy and co. was fiction, but I still live in "those times". I don't curse, I don't drink (to excess), I respect others and their property, etc. Therefore, I don't need to be woken up, what was relevant in the good old days should be just as relevant today. If it isn't, it's because we have allowed it. The "officers" were unprofessional and immature, no matter what times they live in.  Please don't take this as a personal attack, because I do respect your opinion.

Rick, to show you how off the grid I am, I had to google Vick Mackey.

[Holeshot 3]

Military tactic. Go in flashing lights, lots of noise, commands, yelling. Keeps your prey disoriented.

 

 

 

HE,  Didn't you get the new SOP?   You will probably hear about it when you get to work tonight. 

 

All MV stops must now include flash-bangs and smoke tossed into the stopped vehicle for officer's safety. =@  =@  

[Holeshot 3]

Back on topic.  I say good for the trooper and I would not want to ever get pulled over by the Bergen County PD. Yikes!!!

[blksheep 466]

I think a lot of the problem is that people always hear about the bad and never the good. Its a lot of misconception. Here in NJ there arent a lot of walking beats anymore, where the cop knew the neighborhood. Its like the doctor who knew the whole family. Times changed. Unfortunately somewhere along the way some attitudes have changed on both sides.

[blksheep 466]

And I agree both side could have handled it better, especially when cameras are rolling.

[bennj 215]

I've been fortunate enough to have grown up with some guys that are great policemen, correction officers and F.B.I. agents. No, I haven't gone on the beat with them, but I see the respect they garner from their peers and the communities they serve. Of course, there's also been a very few bad apples in comparison, but I hope I'm relatively free from misconceptions as I do appreciate the circumstances they work under. As far as ever being stopped, I learned early on that if you give respect, you usually get respect.

Good night