Militarization of the police?

[Chuck Whitlock]

I'm not sure that it is your local constabulary that you really need to worry about.

http://www.policeone.com/homeland-security/articles/6361234-TSA-quietly-expands-its-role-prompts-controversy/

[LittleLebowski]

"exempt from probable cause"

[fixer]

and this...ummm...unique method of investigation by the DEA:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805


Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial

[BLR]

A VIPR squad? Viper?

Sigh.

[ToddG]

A VIPR squad? Viper?

And the acronym is so incredibly tortured. It's obvious someone wanted it to sound menacing. TSA, the nation's prime example of oblvious marketing.

[BLR]

And the acronym is so incredibly tortured. It's obvious someone wanted it to sound menacing. TSA, the nation's prime example of oblvious marketing.

It is just so.............lame.

[Tamara]

It is just so.............lame.

If you can keep a straight face while some tubby dude wearing baby blue rubber gloves is referring to himself on his FRS radio as "VIPR One-Five", you are made of sterner stuff than I.

[BLR]

If you can keep a straight face while some tubby dude wearing baby blue rubber gloves is referring to himself on his FRS radio as "VIPR One-Five", you are made of sterner stuff than I.

You know, I've gotten a LOT of practice at keeping my mouth shut and maintaining a straight face in the last year or so.

Stupid is spreading.

But seriously. VIPR.

Serious question - who has the COBRA teams?

[Haraise]

I've been waiting for someone (probably from doodie) to talk about Tiger Teams.

[Byron]

ACRONYM

A Criminal Regiment Of Nasty Young Men

http://25.media.tumblr.com/636d9505731724a4872ee1fb094b9941/tumblr_mq452zSwGI1qgp9sko1_400.png

[Tamara]

Serious question - who has the COBRA teams?

They were quashed by the Government Inspectors of Jobs, Operations, and Engineering.

[RoyGBiv]

"exempt from probable cause"

Jefferson (and Madison) weeps.

[Byron]

They were quashed by the Government Inspectors of Jobs, Operations, and Engineering.
http://tinyorphans.com/towpblog/wp-content/uploads/win.gif

[TCinVA]

If you can keep a straight face while some tubby dude wearing baby blue rubber gloves is referring to himself on his FRS radio as "VIPR One-Five", you are made of sterner stuff than I.

It's all fun and games until he starts probing our nether regions for explosives.

[NickA]

We were in an airport last year when a shuttle dropped off a bunch of TSA people.
Daughter: "Daddy, are those policemen?"
Me: "No honey, they just like to dress like policemen." :p
Several of them heard me, surprised I didn't get strip searched right there.

[jlw]

The argument for a prevention/response teams within the transportation systems is an easy one considering the history of terrorist attacks on just such targets. That statement is NOT an endorsement of unreasonable search and seizure.

Naming such teams something like VIPR is utterly stupid.

While I would have them dressed differently than the gate agents, I'd avoid anything paramilitary looking.

[ToddG]

There are certain segments within TSA that want to "turn things up a notch" and expand into the armed security for all public transportation in the U.S.

In other words, there are bureaucrats who want to grow their budgets, empires, and personal armies.

I'm less critical of airport screening procedures than many here, but federalizing my local elementary school's crossing guard (and giving her an AR and body armor) seems like the wrong solution to the threat of terrorism.

[BLR]

The argument for a prevention/response teams within the transportation systems is an easy one considering the history of terrorist attacks on just such targets. That statement is NOT an endorsement of unreasonable search and seizure.

Naming such teams something like VIPR is utterly stupid.

While I would have them dressed differently than the gate agents, I'd avoid anything paramilitary looking.

Define "unreasonable."

[ToddG]

Define "unreasonable."

Go to law school.

Seriously, it's like asking someone the definition of purple.

[jlw]

Define "unreasonable."

Okay (http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/the-2-3-4-rule-2/).

[BLR]

I don't understand your illustration. I can define purple exactly via a painters wheel (between red and blue) or the visible spectrum (between crimson and violet).

For an active search, I would say "unreasonable" is the failure to be able to clearly articulate probable cause.

Of course, this is all becoming more and more academic as more sophisticated passive (in the physical sense as no one is being touched) screening technology becomes available, such as terahertz sensing platforms.

[Mr_White]

I can't believe none of you have made the connection between VIPR and V.I.P.E.R.S.: http://www.threatmanagementcenter.com/

They said these teams are made up of FAMs, but I think they really hired those guys ^^^

[Mr_White]

http://i0.wp.com/doodiepants.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/viper-academy-2.jpg

http://www.threatmanagementcenter.com/vipers_pic_1.jpg

Let's play a game. Who do you think is who?

These are their Instructors' names:

Alpha
Bravo
Cobra
Delta
Echo
Falcon
Gamma
Havoc
Icon
Jaguar
Kodamma
Lotus
Mantis
Nova
Omega
Polar
Quantum
Razor
Saber
Talon
Unit
Wartime
Xternal
Yield
Zodiak

Whoever has to be Yield got shafted. I would want to be Jaguar, Kodamma, Mantis, or Unit. Heh, Unit. And I didn't know JJ "Razor" Racaza was a V.I.P.E.R. Awesome!

[Tamara]

I don't understand your illustration.

Realize that the law is not made of numbers, but words.

[Mr_White]

Realize that the law is not made of numbers, but words.

I believe 'law' is made up of letters, not words.

[Kyle Reese]

The guy on the left wears 0-6 rank insignia, and I *heart* the steely, pseudo tough guy 1000 yd stares.

[Mr_White]

I think I have a chest rig for AK mags that is like the dude on the right's.

O-6, huh? Cool. When that guy levels up, he will be a General. Or a Rear Admiral.

[Kyle Reese]

I think I have a chest rig for AK mags that is like the dude on the right's.

O-6, huh? Cool. When that guy levels up, he will be a General. Or a Rear Admiral.

This admiral....

1689

[Shellback]

The guy on the left wears 0-6 rank insignia, and I *heart* the steely, pseudo tough guy 1000 yd stares.

This would've been more appropriate.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HPwN-t02L40/TA_wGR8njeI/AAAAAAAAAlA/KwBEglK64f4/s1600/goodkernel+of+corn.jpg

[Chuck Haggard]

This admiral....

1689

No, because that Adliral has common sense

[LHS]

Maybe it's because I didn't go to law school, but I don't recall anything in the Fourth Amendment exempting "administrative searches".

This is why I am so opposed to the mandatory screening at airports. It was only a matter of time until the justification was used to extend unreasonable searches outside airports and into daily life.

[Jackdog]

They said these teams are made up of FAMs, but I think they really hired those guys ^^^

VIPR Teams are made up of TSOs, FAMs and local LEOs.

[TGS]

I'm not sure what some of the things said in this thread have to do with "militarization," specifically the mentioned exemptions and purposed lying on investigations.

Overall, I'm not really convinced that the police are any more militarized today than 100 years ago. The most common reply I get is, "There weren't SWAT teams 100 years ago." Well, no kidding. Let's look at it in context: There weren't specialized tactical teams in the military running around in porcupine stacks, dressed in all black, 100 years ago either. SWAT is simply an evolution of tactics and weaponry to more effectively address an issue: both military and police tactical teams developed simultaneously, for the most part.

What there was, however, are the following:

1) Police agencies being run by military officers pulled temporarily from service...and run quite militaristic. A notable mention is the famed leatherneck, Smedly Butler. During his tour as the Philadelphia Public Safety Commissioner, he ran random checkpoints for entrance into the city. If you couldn't produce zee official papers, you were summarily thrown in jail. 4th Amendment, what? So, any perceived, alleged, or proven violations of the 4th Amendment are not really anything new, and thus IMO should not be used as an example of the police becoming more militarized....because it's nothing new!

2) Detective agencies running around in armored cars shooting randomly into crowds. 'Nuff said.

3) Many police agencies wearing surplus military uniforms. This goes back to point #1. Notable examples include the Vermont State Police being founded by a Marine, and Schwarzkopf founding the NJ State Police. The original uniforms of both included military surplus, with the NJSP even wearing a Sam Browne (and still do today). So, how are cops today running around in BDUs any more militarized than cops running around in actual military surplus uniforms ~100 years ago? One final note, and I'm enacting Godwin's Law here; there's no greater measurement of militarization than a good'ole comparison to the Nazi's. Third Reich military uniforms were heavily influenced by the MA State Police threads, due to a notable nazi having studied at Harvard pre-war. If the Third Reich military found their uniforms to be inspiring, I'd say that's a pretty darn strong statement on the militaristic discipline and authoritative presentation of US police through their uniforms.

4) Military grade weaponry: How is a cop running around with the latest and greatest assault rifle any more militarized than cops running around with the latest and greatest automatic weapons ~100 years ago? Let's put that into context even further: cops had BARs back in the 20's and 30's. Yet lately, I haven't seen too many cops running around with the most advanced light machine gun. More indication that cops are not more militarized than ~100 years ago, IMO.

5) Military discipline and organization. Most police organizations today operate more similar to a company as opposed to a paramilitary organization. Giving titles like "private" and "Sergeant" do not change that. Many of the larger police organizations from the 20's are more similar to what today would be considered a Gendarmie.

So, those are a few points to consider. Personally, I think a lot of the perception that police are becoming more militarized revolves around the greater publicity that crappy police interactions carries. Welcome to the digital age, ladies and gentleman: much more police activity is going to be reported on than previously. In addition, I do not for one second believe that police organizations today are more heavy handed in raping lady liberty than they were in the past. Many people want to view the cops of yesteryear with some sort of shining light, as if they were all Barney Fife. Many State Police organizations were formed solely for the purpose of cracking skulls at union events (back when unions actually had a purpose and legitimacy), often veiled for other reasons: the NJSP supposedly for protecting rural chicken farmers who otherwise had no police coverage. Right. That's why they were dressed like stormtroopers (or rather, stormtroopers dressed like THEM!) and led by military officers: to protect chicken farmers. What a load of BS. In addition, take a tour through the last 100 years and civil liberties. I'm not aware of any police agencies today having written policy to physically assault minorities even when a crime isn't present.

So, are the police more militarized today? Baloney, IMO. They're infinitely better trained, usually pursue their career for more virtuous reasons instead of just being the poor mick off the boat trying to get a job with the rest of the family......and they are without a doubt exposed to much, much more oversight, scrutiny and restraint than yesteryear.

IMO.

[ToddG]

Maybe it's because I didn't go to law school,

Correct. I'm not calling you out specifically, dude, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people will chant "stay in your lane!" when it comes to gear & tactics but simultaneously think they know more about Constitutional Law than a Supreme Court Justice.


but I don't recall anything in the Fourth Amendment exempting "administrative searches".

What types of searches are listed in the Fourth Amendment?


This is why I am so opposed to the mandatory screening at airports.

Airport screening used to be performed by private third parties. The fact that it's now performed by a standardized staff of government employees doesn't make it any more intrusive. Don't want to be searched? Don't get on an airplane. Because I don't recall anything about a Right to Fly in the Constitution, either.


It was only a matter of time until the justification was used to extend unreasonable searches outside airports and into daily life.

That's a slippery slope fallacy. You don't stop a legitimate and historically accepted practice (airport screening) just because maybe possibly some day it might lead to XYZ. Instead, if and when XYZ happen, you stop that.

Here's an interesting question for you: do you think it's ok for the government to screen/search you before you enter a courthouse on jury duty? In that case you're being required by law to enter the building whether you really want to or not. It's completely different than choosing to get on an airplane, go to a football game, etc.

[JodyH]

Here's an interesting question for you: do you think it's ok for the government to screen/search you before you enter a courthouse on jury duty? In that case you're being required by law to enter the building
The last time I was called to jury duty I was handed a "Jurors badge" which exempted me from courthouse screening.
:cool:

[ToddG]

The last time I was called to jury duty I was handed a "Jurors badge" which exempted me from courthouse screening.

That's very interesting. I could be remembering wrong, but I'm fairly certain that both in DC and MD jurors are subject to the same search procedure as anyone else entering the courthouse. During my time at the USAO in DC the rules changed so that even we were searched. I found out about that the hard way one day and had to walk all the way back to the office to secure a nice folding knife before going to court.

[TCinVA]

At the local courthouse there's one entrance and everybody has to go through the metal detectors staffed by armed deputies. Sworn LE and judges can wave through. Last time I went to traffic court I had some foil-packed gum in the pocket where I normally keep my J frame...and when the wand went off near my pocket my brain immediately went "You forgot to leave your BUG in the car." and I almost lost bowel control.

[Clyde from Carolina]

At the local courthouse there's one entrance and everybody has to go through the metal detectors staffed by armed deputies. Sworn LE and judges can wave through. Last time I went to traffic court I had some foil-packed gum in the pocket where I normally keep my J frame...and when the wand went off near my pocket my brain immediately went "You forgot to leave your BUG in the car." and I almost lost bowel control.

I had a moment like that at O'Hare in Chicago once standing in line for the metal detectors when I gave myself the last little pat down and felt a speed strip for a J-frame in a pocket. Doh!

Pants had already been through numerous screenings in my checked bag and the strip was missed and I had somehow missed the strip myself before leaving home. (Stupid "tactical pants" with too many pockets.) I later deduced I had worn them to dinner with the wife, came home and put them back in the closet instead of dirty clothes hamper as they had only been worn for about two hours. Missed the strip.


Gulp--excused myself, ditched the strip, didn't lose bowel control, but could have easily gone that way. Man, still get a chill thinking about it. :rolleyes:

[BLR]

It's not the "militarization" of police in the sense that police officers are acting or are organized in a military fashion. Rather it is the perceived increase in the use of excessive force/escalation of force and encroaching on privacy/pursuit of happiness as a result of the increasing numbers of videos of LEOs exercising poor judgment and unprofessional behavior. And more specifically, it is the use of "special" teams the are perceived to have exemption from observing "common sense" in favor of "violence of action" without significant and meaningful repercussions (though this is universal in gov't employ - look at the IRS boss...paid admin leave). I think the reason so many feathers are ruffled over this is because of incidences like the dentist's in this http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book _the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/. Everyone on the gov't payroll here took an active part and not a single one said "This is crazy. I'm not going to raid a dentist's home over this. Just arrest him." Which is what we would hope would happen rather than SWAT being called out. Where was the common sense? Whose interest was being served by SWATs involvement?

[Tamara]

Rather it is the perceived increase in the use of excessive force/escalation of force...

And a very large part of it is perception and a lack of historical perspective.

Mark Steyn's ramble on the elderly gentleman who was perhaps killed by excessive force (trying Zimmerman in the media is wrong but trying the Park Forest police in the pages of National Review is hunky dory) included the line "I wonder what Mr. Wrana’s final thoughts were of the country he fought for 70 years ago." to which I couldn't help but reply "Maybe they were 'At least they don't machine-gun striking coal miners anymore.'"

[TGS]

It's not the "militarization" of police in the sense that police officers are acting or are organized in a military fashion. Rather it is the perceived increase in the use of excessive force/escalation of force and encroaching on privacy/pursuit of happiness as a result of the increasing numbers of videos of LEOs exercising poor judgment and unprofessional behavior. And more specifically, it is the use of "special" teams the are perceived to have exemption from observing "common sense" in favor of "violence of action" without significant and meaningful repercussions (though this is universal in gov't employ - look at the IRS boss...paid admin leave). I think the reason so many feathers are ruffled over this is because of incidences like the dentist's in this http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book _the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/. Everyone on the gov't payroll here took an active part and not a single one said "This is crazy. I'm not going to raid a dentist's home over this. Just arrest him." Which is what we would hope would happen rather than SWAT being called out. Where was the common sense? Whose interest was being served by SWATs involvement?

Yeah, I can see that. My last two paragraphs stand to address that sentiment.

In addition, my first sentence also stands. I don't personally associate corruption, negligence or miscarriage of justice as "militarization." While there are self-serving people in every walk of life, I don't personally remember my time of military service being highlighted by corruption, negligence, or miscarriage of justice (or, say upholding a standard). I don't understand why these things are then associated as militarization, as these are not what define military.

To close, as I tried to convey in my previous long ramble.....only bad stuff gets reported by the rise of social media. These negative police interactions make news exactly because they're the exception, not the norm.


And a very large part of it is perception and a lack of historical perspective.


Thankfully someone else shares my sentiment. To some degree, at least.

[JHC]

Yeah, I can see that. My last two paragraphs stand to address that sentiment.

In addition, my first sentence also stands. I don't personally associate corruption, negligence or miscarriage of justice as "militarization." While there are self-serving people in every walk of life, I don't personally remember my time of military service being highlighted by corruption, negligence, or miscarriage of justice (or, say upholding a standard). I don't understand why these things are then associated as militarization, as these are not what define military.

To close, as I tried to convey in my previous long ramble.....only bad stuff gets reported by the rise of social media. These negative police interactions make news exactly because they're the exception, not the norm.



Thankfully someone else shares my sentiment. To some degree, at least.

Thank you.

[JHC]

Correct. I'm not calling you out specifically, dude, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people will chant "stay in your lane!" when it comes to gear & tactics but simultaneously think they know more about Constitutional Law than a Supreme Court Justice.


, etc.

OH hell yeah. And warfighting and national security policy. But I digress. Been drinking. A lot.

[ToddG]

OH hell yeah. And warfighting and national security policy.

Wait, are you saying "national importance" and "personal expertise" aren't the same thing? :cool:

[JHC]

Wait, are you saying "national importance" and "personal expertise" aren't the same thing? :cool:

Dude. I can't process exactly what you mean right now. Stop. ;)

I should edit while I can. But I won't.

[LHS]

Correct. I'm not calling you out specifically, dude, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people will chant "stay in your lane!" when it comes to gear & tactics but simultaneously think they know more about Constitutional Law than a Supreme Court Justice.


That's a fair point. That said, I tend to think that constitutional questions have become overly complicated in the last 200+ years. Most of the text is clear ("shall make no law", "shall not be infringed") but events and social mores have changed and caused people to look for wiggle room, and in a lot of places they find plenty. The fourth amendment's use of "unreasonable" is a good example of the latter. And to be completely fair, it didn't take all that long. Washington led a revolt over taxes against the British, then sent Federalized troops to put down a revolt over taxes during his own presidency.



What types of searches are listed in the Fourth Amendment?


It only distinguishes between reasonable and unreasonable, as you well know, and the last two centuries have consisted of a lot of people trying to define both. Simply calling it an 'administrative search' doesn't make it reasonable. If they can prove RAS or PC, then fine, search away. But randomly stopping and searching people seems pretty unreasonable to me.



Airport screening used to be performed by private third parties. The fact that it's now performed by a standardized staff of government employees doesn't make it any more intrusive. Don't want to be searched? Don't get on an airplane. Because I don't recall anything about a Right to Fly in the Constitution, either.


And I didn't like it back when it was private third-party. They're little more than security theater, and by conditioning people to accept them, they do more harm than good in the long term. In addition, even though the security was provided by third-party agents, the basic tenets of what you could and could not bring on a commercial aircraft were standardized by the federal government. There was no option of choosing an airline that allowed you to be armed vs. one that did not. So the TSA isn't really the issue, it's the lack of a choice to fly armed vs. submitting to an invasive search.

Would you accept checkpoints on the street, stopping you in your vehicle to be searched, on the premise that you had the simple choice to avoid them by not driving? The 9th amendment is pretty clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Rights are not limited to what is enumerated in that document, so your 'Right to Fly' argument falls flat.



That's a slippery slope fallacy. You don't stop a legitimate and historically accepted practice (airport screening) just because maybe possibly some day it might lead to XYZ. Instead, if and when XYZ happen, you stop that.


And that's why I don't like airport screening: it slowly made (in my opinion) unreasonable, warrantless search and seizure a 'historically accepted practice' over time. And given that TSA is now expanding that process to other facets of my life, it isn't a question of 'if'. It's happening now. And the justification is that "Well, if it's OK in airports, why not on trains/sporting events/concerts/etc?" That's why slippery slopes are so... slippery.



Here's an interesting question for you: do you think it's ok for the government to screen/search you before you enter a courthouse on jury duty? In that case you're being required by law to enter the building whether you really want to or not. It's completely different than choosing to get on an airplane, go to a football game, etc.

I would very much prefer they did not screen/search. I don't care to be disarmed just because I'm in a specific building, especially if I'm mandated to be there by law. I have no problem doing jury duty, I feel it's an important civic responsibility, and an important civil right. But if I'm surrounded by really pissed off criminal types, with minimal immediate law enforcement presence (in my limited experience in juries, I've seen a single bailiff at most unless an officer was there to testify), I want the ability to protect myself. If a private party wants to prohibit firearms/weapons/Flying Spaghetti Monster pamphlets on his own property, then that's fine. I have other choices for where to eat, play, work, etc. When I am forced by law to go into a situation that demands I be disarmed, I do not appreciate it. I tolerate it because I'm not willing to die or go to prison, but I can still work within the system to try and fix it even if it's little more than a pipe dream.

[ToddG]

That's a fair point. That said, I tend to think that constitutional questions have become overly complicated in the last 200+ years. Most of the text is clear ("shall make no law", "shall not be infringed") but events and social mores have changed and caused people to look for wiggle room, and in a lot of places they find plenty.

Zeroing in exclusively on "shall not be infringed" is no different than the antis zeroing in on "militia." SCOTUS declared that the Second Amendment is, at its core, about self defense... but "self defense" isn't in the Constitution anywhere, either.

Let's look at the 8th Amendment:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment?" There are millions who believe the death penalty qualifies. There are millions who believe the death penalty is just fine. Who decides? Ever since Marbury v. Madison, the answer has been SCOTUS. Because even though the words and phrases are clear in general, their exact meaning -- and the exact impact they will have on very discrete, real events -- isn't.


It only distinguishes between reasonable and unreasonable, as you well know, and the last two centuries have consisted of a lot of people trying to define both. Simply calling it an 'administrative search' doesn't make it reasonable. If they can prove RAS or PC, then fine, search away. But randomly stopping and searching people seems pretty unreasonable to me.

That's why I mentioned the courthouse scenario. That's a genuine administrative search. It doesn't require PC or even RAS. It's an all or nothing, "you must be THIS searched to ride this ride."


And I didn't like it back when it was private third-party.

Fair enough, but I think if you look around you'll see polls and similar data showing that the average American does want it. Having a gun with me in seat 4C isn't going to do me or anyone else any good if the guy back in 28A pulls a bomb out of his never-checked-by-security backpack and blows the wing off the airliner.

As for the suggestion that TSA isn't accomplishing anything, I'm not sure how you propose to prove such a thing. They've collected tons (literally) of contraband. They've identified and dealt with countless security probes by suspected BGs. You can say you don't think there's a deterrent effect, but again I think you'll have a hard time raising that beyond personal opinion.


Would you accept checkpoints on the street, stopping you in your vehicle to be searched, on the premise that you had the simple choice to avoid them by not driving? The 9th amendment is pretty clear: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Rights are not limited to what is enumerated in that document, so your 'Right to Fly' argument falls flat.

So now you're back to explaining to me what the Constitution means. Cite some cases supporting that rendition of the 9th Amendment. Because "this document is not an exclusive list of rights" isn't the same as "everything not in this document is also a right."


That's why slippery slopes are so... slippery.

Statements like this are why "slippery slope" was identified as a logical fallacy thousands of years ago.


If a private party wants to prohibit firearms/weapons/Flying Spaghetti Monster pamphlets on his own property, then that's fine.

You realize that commercial airliners are all private property, yes?

[Mr_White]

in DC and MD jurors are subject to the same search procedure as anyone else entering the courthouse

That's how it was when I had jury duty here.

[Mr_White]

OH hell yeah. And warfighting and national security policy. But I digress. Been drinking. A lot.

What's your drink bro?

[LHS]

That's why I mentioned the courthouse scenario. That's a genuine administrative search. It doesn't require PC or even RAS. It's an all or nothing, "you must be THIS searched to ride this ride."


And that is exactly what I dislike. To be honest, it's really a matter of degree. I don't object to such a search for someone going into a military base, or a nuclear power plant. So in essence I just draw the line at a different point in the freedom-vs-security spectrum.



Fair enough, but I think if you look around you'll see polls and similar data showing that the average American does want it. Having a gun with me in seat 4C isn't going to do me or anyone else any good if the guy back in 28A pulls a bomb out of his never-checked-by-security backpack and blows the wing off the airliner.


And that's why I think you should have the freedom to choose to fly on an airline that performs those checks, while I should have the freedom to fly on one that does not.



As for the suggestion that TSA isn't accomplishing anything, I'm not sure how you propose to prove such a thing. They've collected tons (literally) of contraband. They've identified and dealt with countless security probes by suspected BGs. You can say you don't think there's a deterrent effect, but again I think you'll have a hard time raising that beyond personal opinion.


And yet people still manage to get on planes with explosives. The only reason we haven't seen another major incident is that the perpetrators screwed up. 9/11 happened because people had been told for years to just shut up and go along for the ride to Cuba, pick up some cigars and rum, and nobody would get hurt. Once that was proven false, people started reacting a lot more aggressively. Explosives are still a danger, no doubt, and I have no issue with passive detection technology to find them before people board the plane. If the dog alerts, or the sniffer machine beeps, then you've got some RAS to delve deeper. But as long as the TSA lets Grandma on board with her 11" aluminum knitting needles, why should my 3" folder be prohibited? Neither is going to allow someone to get through that cockpit door, and the passengers are not going to sit idly by while Johnny Jihad slits throats.

That also brings up another issue: if you harden airplanes enough, you'll just turn the BG's attention to softer targets. Why risk a magnometer when you can just blow up all the people in baggage claim? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domodedovo_International_Airport_bombing) Why not hit a shopping mall, a church, a school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis), or a theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis)? Should we put metal detectors and TSA checkpoints at all these locations? What makes airports different?




You realize that commercial airliners are all private property, yes?

Yes, they are, but they are required by law to implement those searches and prohibit specific items. There is no choice for the consumer.

[jlw]

I am the same peace officer whether I come to work with my Marlin 336 levergun or I have my suppressed Colt SBR. I am the same peace officer if I am in my class A uniform with tie and "big hat law" Smokey Bear hat or I am in plain clothes with and throw on my external vest carrier if something breaks out.

The equipment has nothing to do with the equation

----

Speaking for GA, I attest upfront that our academy and training system is broken. In general, we are reinforcing failure, and if individual agencies aren't making up for its shortcomings then there can be serious gaps in a peace officers training.

However, the general education system is also broken with a severe lack of education on the Constitution, and these are the folks in the applicant pool.

I think that perception is also altered by the instant news cycle brought about by cell phones and YouTube.

[Drang]

And yet people still manage to get on planes with explosives.
Has there been a bombing of a commercial flight originating in the USA I haven't heard about?

[Odin Bravo One]

I am the same peace officer whether I come to work with my Marlin 336 levergun or I have my suppressed Colt SBR. I am the same peace officer if I am in my class A uniform with tie and "big hat law" Smokey Bear hat or I am in plain clothes with and throw on my external vest carrier if something breaks out.

The equipment has nothing to do with the equation



So, when you are going to investigate a cold burg at a business in plain clothes, there is no difference in your policing than when you are jocked up in full armor, ballistic helmet and Colt SBR?

Equipment has everything to do with the equation.

It doesn't matter what you think you look like, or the image you think you are projecting, or how you feel about yourself as a peace officer...........it is the public's perception that is the concern here, especially as it pertains to potential perceived threats from law enforcement officials.

You show up uninvited to my house in plain clothes and a business card, there is not likely to be an issue. Show up looking like you just finished a photo shoot for the 5.11, LA Police Gear, and Brownells AR catalogs, you are very likely to have issues.

Though, given the gross incompetence to perform anything beyond the most basic tasks of most of the organizations being discussed in this thread, a pack of Cub Scouts with a potato gun could defend themselves against such "tyranny and oppression" as a VIPR Team.

[Tamara]

. Because I don't recall anything about a Right to Fly in the Constitution, either.

It's not in any of the penumbras emanating from the Privileges and Immunities clause? (49 U.S.C. section 40103 says I have a right to transit navigable airspace, although I assume I'd have to bring my own plane...)

(I'll note parenthetically that when I type "constitutional right to" in my Google search box, "... travel" is the third autocomplete result down. This must be a popular topic for Internet bull sessions. I wish this d___ed iPad would quit autocapitalizing "Internet".)

[BLR]

I'd also like to point out that those striking coal miners were also allowed to purchase new machine guns themselves.

The knowledge of corrupt (that is the proper descriptor of the sheriffs you cite) sheriffs of yore does nothing to lessen the reaction I have to http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal. Why should or would it?

Suspended 3 weeks w/o pay for caping an unarmed MD. That's all, only because his W2 came from the .gov.

[Tamara]

I'd also like to point out that those striking coal miners were also allowed to purchase new machine guns themselves.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand. "White coal miners in some parts of the country were allowed to buy machine guns wi no restrictions prior to 1968, therefore law enforcement today is more militarized."

Watermelon kickstand banana unicycle.


The knowledge of corrupt (that is the proper descriptor of the sheriffs you cite) sheriffs of yore..

I am not sure how to answer this, or if it is even directed at me, since I didn't cite any sheriffs?

[BLR]

I fail to see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand. "White coal miners in some parts of the country were allowed to buy machine guns wi no restrictions prior to 1968, therefore law enforcement today is more militarized."

Watermelon kickstand banana unicycle.



I am not sure how to answer this, or if it is even directed at me, since I didn't cite any sheriffs?

First statement - it's early. I misread and mistook your reference (I presume) to the Ludlow Massacre. Disregard my comment. I had constructed an argument out of thin air in that.

Second - well, that was in your response to the statement that the consternation of many is a result of lack of historical perspective. I threw the sheriffs under the bus, so please substitute "sheriffs" with "law enforcement." So, in other words, historical perspective shouldn't lessen anyone's reaction to current events.

ETA: RE: Wrana. Yeah. Who tazes/bean bags a 95 yr old guy? I mean seriously. What went through their minds on that?

[Odin Bravo One]

It's not in any of the penumbras emanating from the Privileges and Immunities clause? (49 U.S.C. section 40103 says I have a right to transit navigable airspace, although I assume I'd have to bring my own plane...)

(I'll note parenthetically that when I type "constitutional right to" in my Google search box, "... travel" is the third autocomplete result down. This must be a popular topic for Internet bull sessions. I wish this d___ed iPad would quit autocapitalizing "Internet".)

Here.........

As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel;

Not Constitution, but we have a SCOTUS ruling on the subject.

And while not in the Constitution, and guaranteed by that document, the same government signed a document justifying their succession from the Monarchy that held the reigns at the time. In that, the same government identified my unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. If my pursuit of happiness is in Arizona, but I'm in Florida, and don't have the right to travel to Arizona, my unalienable right to my pursuit of happiness has been violated.



I'd also like to point out that those striking coal miners were also allowed to purchase new machine guns themselves.

The knowledge of corrupt (that is the proper descriptor of the sheriffs you cite) sheriffs of yore does nothing to lessen the reaction I have to http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal. Why should or would it?

Suspended 3 weeks w/o pay for caping an unarmed MD. That's all, only because his W2 came from the .gov.

I'm all for rule of law, am very pro-LE, including loyalty to officers by the leadership, administration, and City/District Attorney's until all facts are in, and everything that can be known is known. But seriously? When you have an officer who displays such blatant incompetence combined with a hero/God complex, and ends in the death of an unarmed man you do nothing? And if the media's side of the story is half correct about douche's fellow officers believing the three week suspension was excessive and uncalled for is correct, then it stands to reason there is yet another LE Agency that is broken beyond repair.

Disgraceful.

[BLR]

I'm all for rule of law, common decency, and am very pro-LE. But seriously? Disgraceful.

One should not read that incident as an indictment of law enforcement. Rather one for the DA and a mindset of expanding proportions in the escalation of force.

That said, I'm bowing out of this now. I have no desire to bash LE. Especially considering I just wanted to poke fun of the acronym VIPR (though, there still remains justification of discussion as to whether that influences mindset of the roving teams of VIPRs and their interactions with the population at large).

[Odin Bravo One]

I must have been editing while you were typing.......I accidentally fatfingered the keyboard and it posted before I was done........rare.

And I have no desire to bash law enforcement as an institution either. But a spade is a spade, and I call it like I see it. Certainly not an indictment of ALL law enforcement, but as a prior LEO, and plenty of friends who are still LEO's, I know that like every other profession.........there is no shortage of slip knots. It's not on me to weed them out, it's on the LE Community. If they won't do it, they should expect to catch some heat from it.

[Clyde from Carolina]

That is one of the most shameful cases I've heard of in a long time. I'm pretty pro law enforcement myself but like Sean said, if even half that report is true, wow.

[Shellback]

Some interesting reading concerning the Constitution and the police we have today. Are cops constitutional? (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm)

[ToddG]

[I]As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999),

Saenz was about eligibility for state welfare rights. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with air travel or searches nor did it give anyone a "right" to enter and benefit from privately owned vehicles without restriction.


In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966),

Also had nothing to do with air travel or searches. Guest simply reiterated that Americans have a right to travel between states. The main point of Guest was that the federal government could prosecute people for civil rights violations (in this case, murder) after a jury in state court had found the defendants not guilty. If Holder forces the issue with Zimmerman, this case, coincidentally, will be one that he uses to justify it.


In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969),

This is another case of someone moving to a new state and wanting more welfare and again has absolutely nothing to do with air travel, searches, etc.


Not Constitution, but we have a SCOTUS ruling on the subject.

We have SCOTUS rulings saying that people are free to travel from state to state and that states cannot unduly burden or punish new residents. (interesting to compare this to many states requiring 30+ days of residency before one can legally apply for a CCW permit)

Stretching these decisions to some kind of guarantee for unfettered travel by any means you choose... no.


If my pursuit of happiness is in Arizona, but I'm in Florida, and don't have the right to travel to Arizona, my unalienable right to my pursuit of happiness has been violated.

First, it is well established that "pursuit of happiness" is not legal justification for just about anything. How would you prosecute date rape, robbery, child pornography?

Second, there is no law that prevents you from traveling from FL to AZ. You can fly, drive, bicycle, walk... whatever makes you happy. But if you're going to get on a commercial airliner, you're subject to various regulations including volunteering to be searched. If you won't permit a search, you won't be arrested... you simply won't be allowed into the secure area of the airport and you won't be able to get on the plane.

If you drive, you're subject to speed limits and other traffic laws (as well as tolls and other government intrusions).

If you walk, you're subject to other laws -- including the prohibition from even stepping foot on the interstate.

You may find airport searches unpleasant. I think highway speed limits are detestable. But neither is unconstitutional.

[LittleLebowski]

The Sal Culosi case is sickening.

[fixer]

It's not the "militarization" of police in the sense that police officers are acting or are organized in a military fashion. Rather it is the perceived increase in the use of excessive force/escalation of force and encroaching on privacy/pursuit of happiness as a result of the increasing numbers of videos of LEOs exercising poor judgment and unprofessional behavior.

Agree, 100%.

[LittleLebowski]

Personally, it bothers me when policemen refer to themselves as "warriors" as opposed to being cops. Nothing wrong with being a cop, policing, and keeping the peace.

[BLR]

What baffles and concerns me is that with almost all these incidents, more than one officer is involved. Is no one saying "You know guys, this will make the news. Maybe it wouldn't look so great to do a Waco on an optometrist" or "Maybe we shouldn't bean bag and taze this 95yr old WWII vet, because, you know, he's ninety-five."

LL - absolutely. And being a Peace Officer is a position of very high responsibility and trust. Which is why the cited example does so much damage to the profession. And that is the very issue at hand. Peace Officers are given tremendous trust and authority. Instances like the cited one, when coupled with other officers saying the 3 week suspension for killing an unarmed doc sends a very, very clear message. Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. Just like medical professionals and other professionals. Killing an unarmed doctor isn't the same thing as screwing up an oil change. Even if he did bet on the game.

Want to be a warrior? Those are call Marines/Soldiers.

[Lon]

The Sal Culosi case is sickening.

Agreed. I remember reading about this went it happened and thinking "what the kitten?" Made me want to puke. On several different levels. As a SWAT member, use of force instructor, firearms instructor it just blows my mind that they didn't fire him.

[ToddG]

Agreed. I remember reading about this went it happened and thinking "what the kitten?" Made me want to puke. On several different levels. As a SWAT member, use of force instructor, firearms instructor it just blows my mind that they didn't fire him.

But to me this crystalizes a key fact that is so often overlooked when these incidents go incendiary on a forum: the actions of the officer were so outside the realm of acceptable policing that most professional LEO observers were shocked and appalled.

It's difficult to argue that these cases represent modern policing when most police officers are disgusted by them.

As others have commented in this thread already, these cases become internet flame fodder specifically because they are so outrageous. How many hundreds of thousands of interactions do US law enforcement officers have every single day in this country that don't disintegrate into one of these atrocities?

[jlw]

So, when you are going to investigate a cold burg at a business in plain clothes, there is no difference in your policing than when you are jocked up in full armor, ballistic helmet and Colt SBR?

Equipment has everything to do with the equation.

It doesn't matter what you think you look like, or the image you think you are projecting, or how you feel about yourself as a peace officer...........it is the public's perception that is the concern here, especially as it pertains to potential perceived threats from law enforcement officials.

You show up uninvited to my house in plain clothes and a business card, there is not likely to be an issue. Show up looking like you just finished a photo shoot for the 5.11, LA Police Gear, and Brownells AR catalogs, you are very likely to have issues.

Though, given the gross incompetence to perform anything beyond the most basic tasks of most of the organizations being discussed in this thread, a pack of Cub Scouts with a potato gun could defend themselves against such "tyranny and oppression" as a VIPR Team.


I taught a class on Wednesday for an agency that has adopted external carriers across the board. These guys were all well trained and articulate and presented a professional demeanor. I took classes at this agency prior to their adopting the external carriers. They were well trained and articulate, and presented a professional demeanor

All that is different is that now when they come into the office they can pull off their vests without having to get undressed to do so.

I don't know where the impression has come from that a vest under a shirt is a regular cop while a vest in an external carrier somehow means SWAT. All of our investigators have external carriers. The surrounding agencies have done similar. We're not talking turtle shell and kevlar helmets here. We're talking the same panels that go in the vest worn with the uniform simply put in a carrier designed to be worn over the top of the clothing.

[JodyH]

When comparing the way things used to be done with how they are done today re:"militarization of the police" you also have to look at the way "we the people" would handle things as well.
Battle of Athens, TN. 1946 (http://silverunderground.com/2012/10/how-tn-dealt-with-vote-fraud-the-battle-of-athens/).

What I see today is a loss of the "checks and balances".
We have very aggressive law enforcement (yay! war on drugs) that's being directed by very aggressive politicians.
Unfortunately, freedom loving individuals are increasingly becoming the minority.
I know I occasionally feel the frustration of being strangled by a controlling government and guess who just happens to be the "boots on the ground" face of that government?
Yup... Police officers.
The mix of frustration with big Gov, Youtube broadcasting every bad interaction with LEO, the feeling that you're fighting a losing battle for individual freedom and it does tend to give the perception that things are getting worse.

Just some rambling thoughts while I sip my first cup of coffee.
:p

[BLR]

But to me this crystalizes a key fact that is so often overlooked when these incidents go incendiary on a forum: the actions of the officer were so outside the realm of acceptable policing that most professional LEO observers were shocked and appalled.

It's difficult to argue that these cases represent modern policing when most police officers are disgusted by them.

As others have commented in this thread already, these cases become internet flame fodder specifically because they are so outrageous. How many hundreds of thousands of interactions do US law enforcement officers have every single day in this country that don't disintegrate into one of these atrocities?

As a lowly tax paying civy, it's not that. There could be millions upon millions of perfect officer-individual interactions that are totally professional. But the fact remains, that one didn't result in the meaningful prosecution of the group involved. Fact remains, the tax payers paid the bill. Not the killer, the SWAT team, or the administration/attorneys that were involved. They were not held accountable. Immunity by govt officials was meant, in my perspective, to prevent them from being sued because a snow truck took off the mirror on my car. Not to allow something like this to happen.

[jlw]

When comparing the way things used to be done with how they are done today re:"militarization of the police" you also have to look at the way "we the people" would handle things as well.
Battle of Athens, TN. 1946 (http://silverunderground.com/2012/10/how-tn-dealt-with-vote-fraud-the-battle-of-athens/).

What I see today is a loss of the "checks and balances".


Actually, I think there are more checks and balances today than there was at the time of the Battle of Athens.

Back in the day, our state legislature passed a law that it was illegal to carry a firearm at a "public gathering" even with the carry license. The legislature didn't define public gathering.

The wink and nod definition was that it applied to blacks gathering together in any numbers.

Time marched on. The legislature was confronted with the historical record and in 2010 removed the public gathering language from our carry laws.

[TGS]

When comparing the way things used to be done with how they are done today re:"militarization of the police" you also have to look at the way "we the people" would handle things as well.
Battle of Athens, TN. 1946 (http://silverunderground.com/2012/10/how-tn-dealt-with-vote-fraud-the-battle-of-athens/).

What I see today is a loss of the "checks and balances".
We have very aggressive law enforcement (yay! war on drugs) that's being directed by very aggressive politicians.
Unfortunately, freedom loving individuals are increasingly becoming the minority.
I know I occasionally feel the frustration of being strangled by a controlling government and guess who just happens to be the "boots on the ground" face of that government?
Yup... Police officers.
The mix of frustration with big Gov, Youtube broadcasting every bad interaction with LEO, the feeling that you're fighting a losing battle for individual freedom and it does tend to give the perception that things are getting worse.

Just some rambling thoughts while I sip my first cup of coffee.
:p

War on drugs today.

War on alcohol in the early 20th century.

How has anything changed? How are SWAT teams going after meth labs with semi-auto carbines any more militarized than a swarm of cops with shotguns, submachine guns and light machine guns emptying their ammo into a building and then going inside to arrest who's left?

Here's a measure of militarization over the years: the actual use of the military to perform police functions! Past: Veterans during the Great Depression held a demonstration to get their benefits, and were run off their ground/killed by US Army Cavalry. Today: Occupy Wall Street rioters were flushed out after destroying public property, creating a public health hazard (sanitation), and overstaying their welcome on permits. They were flushed out not by US Army Cavalry, but by riot-trained police officers using less than lethal munitions.

How does that reflect a country which is more militarized in its police duties?

[ToddG]

How has anything changed? How are SWAT teams going after meth labs with semi-auto carbines any more militarized than a swarm of cops with shotguns, submachine guns and light machine guns emptying their ammo into a building and then going inside to arrest who's left?


What changed is that the American people looked at the criminal & LE chaos caused by Prohibition and repealed it. The War on Drugs, OTOH, has been expanding and encroaching further into individual civil liberties for decades with no end in sight.

[JodyH]

There's no difference between 20 cops with Tommyguns raiding a liquor warehouse in 1934 and 20 cops with AR15's raiding a meth lab in 2013.
"Mission creep" is what pisses me off.
20 cops with AR15's conducting a business license inspection on barbershops or 20 cops with AR15's serving misdemeanor warrants... yea, that pisses me off.

[Shellback]

When cops think it's appropriate to have shirts like these made, wear them in public and think it's acceptable, that's where some of the problem lies.

http://i.imgur.com/lN6SxY9.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1205020/original.jpg

http://p.twimg.com/AuwvX_fCAAIKx5Z.jpg:large

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Mike_Chitwood_Scumbag_Eradication_Team.jpg

http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/original-1.jpg

http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/image-1.jpeg

http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/bp%20police%20t-shirt.jpg

[TGS]

When cops think it's appropriate to have shirts like these made, wear them in public and think it's acceptable, that's where some of the problem lies.

http://i.imgur.com/lN6SxY9.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1205020/original.jpg

http://p.twimg.com/AuwvX_fCAAIKx5Z.jpg:large

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Mike_Chitwood_Scumbag_Eradication_Team.jpg

http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/original-1.jpg

http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/image-1.jpeg

http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/bp%20police%20t-shirt.jpg

No doubt.

And in the past they collected notches on their service revolvers.

So where's the increase in militarization?

[Shellback]

No doubt.

And in the past they collected notches on their service revolvers.

So where's the increase in militarization?

It doesn't matter what your perception is, we're (collectively on gun forums) a very small minority. Your definition, interpretation and the way most people on this forum, and similar, view things is vastly different than Joe & Jane. Perception is reality and many people perceive a militarization of the police, that's it. Argue semantics and all the rest of it but it doesn't amount to shit. What the public perceives as a problem is a problem to them and they hold the pursestrings as paying customers.

ETA - You could say that the militarization comes in the form of skulls and "death dealer" type shirts that are marketed and sold to various SWAT types.

ETA 2 - I also understand the sentiment, the humor and mindset that comes with a stressful job. ER Docs, nurses, firemen and paramedics all have a gallows type humor concerning on the job type stuff. However, they don't shoot people, lock them up, etc. and that's where the negative publicity comes from.

[TGS]

It doesn't matter what your perception is, we're (collectively on gun forums) a very small minority. Your definition, interpretation and the way most people on this forum, and similar, view things is vastly different than Joe & Jane. Perception is reality and many people perceive a militarization of the police, that's it. Argue semantics and all the rest of it but it doesn't amount to shit. What the public perceives as a problem is a problem to them and they hold the pursestrings as paying customers.

ETA - You could say that the militarization comes in the form of skulls and "death dealer" type shirts that are marketed and sold to various SWAT types.

ETA 2 - I also understand the sentiment, the humor and mindset that comes with a stressful job. ER Docs, nurses, firemen and paramedics all have a gallows type humor concerning on the job type stuff. However, they don't shoot people, lock them up, etc. and that's where the negative publicity comes from.

Semantics?

That's not semantics. You can't just throw away history which contradicts a rise in "militarization", saying it's "semantics." That's utterly ridiculous.

[Shellback]

That's not semantics. You can't just throw away history which contradicts a rise in "militarization", saying it's "semantics." That's utterly ridiculous.

I'm not arguing saying there is an increase. I'm speaking of the public in general, non-gun types, and their perception. I've spoken to quite a few people about it and they all say roughly the same thing... Time to crack a beer and get in the pool... These are the things people see and some of the reasoning behind forming that opinion. Like it or not the customer doesn't like what they're getting served.

Police should have visible name tags.

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/militarized-police-puppetgov.jpg

http://assets2.motherboard.tv/content-images/article/no-politician-wants-to-look-anti-cop-an-interview-with-radley-balko/4452e163bc2aa9f5bf60097b74286b65_vice_630x420.jpg

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51db03d96bb3f7736a000021/new-book-details-the-disturbing-militarization-of-americas-police.jpg

http://endthelie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Solano-sheriff-tank.jpg

[LittleLebowski]

This thread is going well but has potential to get ugly. Let's all remember to conduct ourselves in a civil manner.

[TGS]

I'm not arguing saying there is an increase. I'm speaking of the public in general, non-gun types, and their perception. I've spoken to quite a few people about it and they all say roughly the same thing... Time to crack a beer and get in the pool... These are the things people see and some of the reasoning behind forming that opinion. Like it or not the customer doesn't like what they're getting served.

Police should have visible name tags.

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/militarized-police-puppetgov.jpg

http://assets2.motherboard.tv/content-images/article/no-politician-wants-to-look-anti-cop-an-interview-with-radley-balko/4452e163bc2aa9f5bf60097b74286b65_vice_630x420.jpg

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51db03d96bb3f7736a000021/new-book-details-the-disturbing-militarization-of-americas-police.jpg

http://endthelie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Solano-sheriff-tank.jpg

I preemptively addressed all those photos in my first post (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?9215-Militarization-of-the-police&p=153235&viewfull=1#post153235), because they're some of the most illogically cited reasons concerning a militarization of the police.....meaning the police are becoming militarized....meaning a rise in militarization of the police....which is the entire point of this thread.

ETA: Now, JodyH had a great point about mission creep. But that isn't militarization. That's corruption, negligence, ect. They are two separate dilemmas.

[BLR]

I'm not arguing saying there is an increase. I'm speaking of the public in general, non-gun types, and their perception. I've spoken to quite a few people about it and they all say roughly the same thing... Time to crack a beer and get in the pool... These are the things people see and some of the reasoning behind forming that opinion. Like it or not the customer doesn't like what they're getting served.

Police should have visible name tags.

http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/militarized-police-puppetgov.jpg

http://assets2.motherboard.tv/content-images/article/no-politician-wants-to-look-anti-cop-an-interview-with-radley-balko/4452e163bc2aa9f5bf60097b74286b65_vice_630x420.jpg

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/51db03d96bb3f7736a000021/new-book-details-the-disturbing-militarization-of-americas-police.jpg

http://endthelie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Solano-sheriff-tank.jpg

Show me a WWII Marine/Soldier/Sailor w/o rank, insignia or name and a 1940s cop and I can tell the difference. Easily. That is what defines "militarization." If the average person can't tell the difference between a military unit and a SWAT unit, it will be difficult to argue that the police are not "miliatarizing."

Show me a SWAT dude today and I likely couldn't distinguish them from a MOUT dude. That is "militarization" in the common use.

However, that is without good or bad connotation. After all, both the LE and mil community are better off for the exchange of ideas. Safety and proficiency are better. Education and responsibility need to play catch up.

ETA: Illustrations -

Cop - http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.old-town.me.us/nos/Pictures/H-567.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.old-town.me.us/nos/places.htm&h=532&w=976&sz=56&tbnid=NVHSsgdAJHnF2M:&tbnh=69&tbnw=127&zoom=1&usg=__M4ARN4YDZDY9xP8EthCJIuI9ngQ=&docid=sDJhYywQYImcyM&sa=X&ei=mXAGUo2tMa_22AWJkoH4Ag&ved=0CEwQ9QEwCQ&dur=906

Marines of similar era - http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/imgcache/12008.png&imgrefurl=http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/showthread.php?t%3D108289&h=450&w=600&sz=85&tbnid=YGPP_iM65eVoQM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__Et5sVbgLg8_NNiMP1989Q28NiCA=&docid=FQzFNOUXGokupM&sa=X&ei=33AGUtOEFM202AX82YCoBA&ved=0CGwQ9QEwBA&dur=2098

SWAT today - http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110721155016/deadliestwarrior/images/8/80/Swat.jpg&imgrefurl=http://deadliestwarrior.wikia.com/wiki/SWAT_Team&h=597&w=800&sz=576&tbnid=ogsVQ3iG9A86wM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=132&zoom=1&usg=__9QLjHMnhxIR0xx6bLG1s_LLNAd0=&docid=yPSU_nCOhZKoFM&sa=X&ei=BXEGUvuYCYOY2QX5lIH4Bw&ved=0CDgQ9QEwAg&dur=755

Marines today - https://www.google.com/search?q=military+mout&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mXEGUqDcO6ny2QXl-ICwDg&ved=0CGEQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=971#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=52wq5YRlaEYgqM%3A%3BKJMhjvJGJ7bd7M%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fmedia.dma.mil%252F2010%252FOct%252F7%2 52F9309%252F600%252F400%252F0%252F101007-M-0000C-002.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.iimef.marines.mil %252FNews%252FNewsArticle%252Ftabid%252F472%252FAr ticle%252F2845%252Fmilitary-police-support-co-practices-tactical-site-exploitation.aspx%3B558%3B400

Not exactly a striking difference IMO.

ETA2: If I had to guess, it looks like State Police dude on right is sporting a Wilson X-Tac. Not my favorite, but he has good taste.

[jlw]

Show me a WWII Marine/Soldier/Sailor w/o rank, insignia or name and a 1940s cop and I can tell the difference.


So can I. That's well before Tennessee v. Garner when it was perfectly legal to simply shoot folks for running away from the scene of a felony crime.

It's before there was any sort of functional soft body armor, thus no ballistic protection for officers at all. Check the figures of the survival rate for officers shot in the line of duty back then and those now.

It was before there were radio systems connecting officers. Within my lifetime the dispatch in a city around here was the patrol cars went by city hall twice per hour to see if a call was holding. Compare the average response times then to those now.

Ever heard of a sundown town?

It's before there were video cameras, cell phones, YouTube, blogs, internet forums.

It's when offenders were given a choice to take a beating or go to jail.

It's when a male could beat his woman without fear of going to jail because unless she would press charges.

As for me, I'll take the modern age with more accountability.

[BLR]

So can I. That's well before Tennessee v. Garner when it was perfectly legal to simply shoot folks for running away from the scene of a felony crime.

It's before there was any sort of functional soft body armor, thus no ballistic protection for officers at all. Check the figures of the survival rate for officers shot in the line of duty back then and those now.

It was before there were radio systems connecting officers. Within my lifetime the dispatch in a city around here was the patrol cars went by city hall twice per hour to see if a call was holding. Compare the average response times then to those now.

Ever heard of a sundown town?

It's before there were video cameras, cell phones, YouTube, blogs, internet forums.

It's when offenders were given a choice to take a beating or go to jail.

It's when a male could beat his woman without fear of going to jail because unless she would press charges.

As for me, I'll take the modern age with more accountability.

Allow me to quote something from my post for you:

"However, that is without good or bad connotation. After all, both the LE and mil community are better off for the exchange of ideas. Safety and proficiency are better."

Not quite sure why you decided take that tone, but ok.

[TGS]

Show me a WWII Marine/Soldier/Sailor w/o rank, insignia or name and a 1940s cop and I can tell the difference. Easily. That is what defines "militarization." If the average person can't tell the difference between a military unit and a SWAT unit, it will be difficult to argue that the police are not "miliatarizing."
...



Two can play that game. As I wrote earlier, many police uniforms were actually military surplus donated straight from military armories.

http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q758/Finkerfuggles/Random/police_zpsf181c9c6.jpg (http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/Finkerfuggles/media/Random/police_zpsf181c9c6.jpg.html)

VS

http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q758/Finkerfuggles/Random/soldiers_zps20276c30.jpg (http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/Finkerfuggles/media/Random/soldiers_zps20276c30.jpg.html)

Since the elite (SWAT) often get brought up, how about we check out the elite military units of the day and how the police dressed similar to them?

http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q758/Finkerfuggles/Random/policecar_zpsad7897ef.jpg (http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/Finkerfuggles/media/Random/policecar_zpsad7897ef.jpg.html)

VS

http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q758/Finkerfuggles/Random/soldier_zpsf9ac8831.jpg (http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/Finkerfuggles/media/Random/soldier_zpsf9ac8831.jpg.html)



Not exactly a striking difference IMO.

Hahaha, you're right! It isn't, is it!?

So, again, I'll reiterate that many police departments used military surplus uniforms. As the photos show, you'll need a hefty dose of fantasy to claim that a significant portion of police didn't look similar to the military when they were wearing the same exact, or extremely similarly fashioned (for a reason), articles of clothing. Ever watch the TV series, "Boardwalk"? The guy in uniform was a Sheriff. He looked like a cavalry trooper (the most elite soldier of the day), however.

Now, I'm not saying all police in the early 20th century looked like military. But, the same holds true today. Many departments purposely outfit their people to look like MTA drivers or milkmen just to create a more personable appearance, whereas others don't. DC MPD comes to mind. Tennessee (I think, maybe Lousiana) actually have troopers who wear bow-ties. The appearance of sport/active-style clothing is very prevalent as well. A neighboring town to me has cops that wear yellow under-armor polos. Check out some of the WA State Police uniforms, too.

So, yeah, some cops are outfitted today like military. That's nothing new or astonishing. If it surprises anyone, it's because they've lived under a rock.

[jlw]

Allow me to quote something from my post for you:

"However, that is without good or bad connotation. After all, both the LE and mil community are better off for the exchange of ideas. Safety and proficiency are better."

Not quite sure why you decided take that tone, but ok.


Silly me. I thought we were somewhat agreeing with each other on that point...

[JodyH]

When I see LEO's in full digital camo climbing out of an APC to raid a $10 buy in VFW poker game... ummm yea.

[BLR]

Silly me. I thought we were somewhat agreeing with each other on that point...

We were. That is why I quoted it and explicitly stated that officer safety, and often private citizen safety has increased.

Your comments, to me at least, inferred a "things are better now, so best not complain."

This thread has competing topics - militarization of police, and the seeming ease of which SWAT/excessive force/altered ROE/suspension of rights ("exempt from probable cause"). They, in some of our minds, tend to cross paths a bit. To some, like possibly JodyH, the "militarization" is the separation from investigative work to what I will describe as "combating the enemy." Be that enemy meth dealers, hippies with fawns, child pornograhers, optometrists that bet on college ball games, human traffickers, pregnant women talking on their phone while driving, or 95 yr old vets who don't want anyone poking them with needles.

Just down the road from me (sort of anyway) is Yellow Springs. A fried and neighbor is a Xenia SWAT member. Great guy. Kids. Honest. Christian. He could be an poster boy for what a cop should be. He was at this http://ysnews.com/news/2013/08/late-night-high-street-shootout-ends-in-yellow-springs-residents-death. I don't doubt for an instant that his and his co-workers were spared injury/death as a result of their special weapons and tactics.


The other point - yes, increased accountability is a good thing. I, as a more than my "fare" share tax paying customer, expect more. As a profession, the LE community should have been the loudest in outcry over Sal. Or http://jonathanturley.org/2013/01/23/california-highway-patrol-settles-case-of-pregnant-woman-being-thrown-to-ground-and-hogtied-after-talking-on-her-cellphone-while-driving/. But the LE community isn't. As a citizen, we are "made examples of." Why are good LEOs not doing the same to these guys? It's poison to your profession.

[TCinVA]

I must have been editing while you were typing.......I accidentally fatfingered the keyboard and it posted before I was done........rare.

And I have no desire to bash law enforcement as an institution either. But a spade is a spade, and I call it like I see it. Certainly not an indictment of ALL law enforcement, but as a prior LEO, and plenty of friends who are still LEO's, I know that like every other profession.........there is no shortage of slip knots. It's not on me to weed them out, it's on the LE Community. If they won't do it, they should expect to catch some heat from it.

I think that's really the core problem here.

It's not that police have access to an APC. There are times when those things come in handy. If anyone doubts that, just read Scotty Reitz's book. It's when the tools get misapplied and misused due to institutional problems like poor supervision, poor leadership, poor personnel decisions, etc that there's a problem.

It's when mistakes get made but because of politics or the ol' boy's network no correction is made and no hard analysis is allowed. In the top circles the guys who kick down the doors are led competently and everything they do from training to use of force is under constant review to eliminate mistakes, problems, or threats to safety. They're always looking to do it better.

That's the sort of thing you'll find happening in LAPD D Platoon...but lots of places don't really live up to the standards of LAPD's SWAT or NTOA, etc in terms of judgment, leadership, or accountability.

[Lon]

Just down the road from me (sort of anyway) is Yellow Springs. A fried and neighbor is a Xenia SWAT member. Great guy. Kids. Honest. Christian. He could be an poster boy for what a cop should be. He was at this http://ysnews.com/news/2013/08/late-night-high-street-shootout-ends-in-yellow-springs-residents-death. I don't doubt for an instant that his and his co-workers were spared injury/death as a result of their special weapons and tactics.


I'm proud to call him a teammate. You're right. Without the APCs we would've been in deep doodoo. Would have had a much different outcome without the APCs. That guy was loaded for the apocalypse. Steel core 7.62x39 rounds make pretty sparks when they bounce off APCs. The other thing that paid for itself that night was our little robot. I'm proud of everyone that was there that night. Bad guy fired @200 rds at us. We (police on scene) only fired 6. Extremely good fire discipline.

My team did away with our camo uniforms (except for snipers) so we didn't look like a military unit. Plain black with lots of POLICE and SHERIFF ID patches.

One of the issues I see regarding SWAT usage involves budget justification. SWAT is expensive. Some would argue that "we are paying for it, might as well use it". Which means that sometimes SWAT gets used just because it's there, not because there is a true tactical reason or officer safety reason that justifies the use.

[BLR]

Yep. You guys did a first rate job.

I'm proud of you guys.

Consumate pros every step of the way. We are a lucky community to have you guys.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

[Tamara]

Here's a measure of militarization over the years: the actual use of the military to perform police functions! Past: Veterans during the Great Depression held a demonstration to get their benefits, and were run off their ground/killed by US Army Cavalry. Today: Occupy Wall Street rioters were flushed out after destroying public property, creating a public health hazard (sanitation), and overstaying their welcome on permits. They were flushed out not by US Army Cavalry, but by riot-trained police officers using less than lethal munitions.

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET versus #OCCUPYKENTSTATE...

[JodyH]

#OCCUPYWALLSTREET versus #OCCUPYKENTSTATE...
Nope.
Kent State did not have the blessing of the POTUS.
"Occupy" was 100% Democrat astroturf.

[Tamara]

Nope.
Kent State did not have the blessing of the POTUS.
"Occupy" was 100% Democrat astroturf.

The president had kitten-all to do with the response to either; both were handled at the local/state level. Neither NYPD nor OH Nat'l Guard were federalized. Your answer is just the photographic negative of "But-but-but George Bush!"

Obama Derangement Syndrome is actually a thing.

[JodyH]

National politics have everything to do with local and state responses to politically charged situations.

The Tea Party would not have been given the same latitude as Occupy Wall Street and there would have been a much more aggressive resolution to a month(s) long Tea Party "occupation".

Occupy get's a pass.
Kent State get's shot up.
State and local feed off the fed vibe.

[Tamara]

Incidentally, I'm pretty much the Amen (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/search?q=swat) Chorus (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/search/label/Stupid%20Cop%20Tricks) on this issue; I shouldn't be having this easy of a time playing devil's advocate. If you can't sell me, you're never going to sell Joe and Suzy Lawnorder.




(FWIW, I liked the post (http://maypeacebewithyou.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-militarization-of-law-enforcement.html) of a really smart friend of mine on this topic.)

[Tamara]

State and local feed off the fed vibe.

Yeah, every Republican governor planning to run for president in '16 is calling the White House for instructions on how to handle protestors.

Treating Fed/State/Local.gov as a monolith all of one mind and purpose is... well, an exotic point of view, and one not borne out by events.

[JodyH]

Thing is i'm not having to sell anything.
There's a anti-LEO undercurrent coming from a lot of places i'd of never dreamed and the majority of the concern has to do with the SWAT "mission creep" I mentioned earlier mixed in with the "Fed sets the tone" I touched on in my last post.

When you feel like BigFedGov is against you and the local face of enforcement is covered in a balaclava and driving an APC... that tends to color peoples perceptions.

[Tamara]

There's a anti-LEO undercurrent coming from a lot of places i'd of never dreamed...

Where had you never dreamed? The CATO Institute? NORML? Reason?

You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger. ;)

[JodyH]

Rick Perry may not call Obama before he makes a move, but the Fed reaction is weighed heavily.
Fed sets the tone.

[Tamara]

Rick Perry may not call Obama before he makes a move, but the Fed reaction is weighed heavily.
Fed sets the tone.

Perry or Pence would outlaw the Democrat party in their states if they thought it would score them the Oval Office in the next Air Force One Golden Ticket sweepstakes.

If Fed sets Perry's tone, why is he so eager to call special legislative sessions to pass laws that are going to go down in flames to liberal courts, unless it is to further cement his conservative bona fides as someone who's willing to tell the feds to go piss up a rope?

[ford.304]

Thing is, incidents where some half trained kitted up DEA agent shoots a 70-year-old vet *are* rare... but a bunch of agents doing a midnight raid for a minor drug warrant are not. The militarization of police means, to me, the fact that officers are routinely dynamically entering houses the way you'd clear a terrorist den in Baghdad, on limited pretenses. Yes, I know they have a warrant... but in many cases that seems to add only a veneer of lawfulness to the process.

Yes, I know not all departments do it, that a lot of times it's DEA rather than local SWAT or what have you. But these aren't situations where there's an active shooter or a known violent felon in the house. It's random families getting thrown to the ground with a gun pointed to their head, all in the name of exigent circumstances. It happens hundreds of times a year in every major city, and when challenged about it the chief says that everyone followed standard procedure.

To me militarization of police means the application of military tactics to civilian populations. Sometimes those can be helpful (I'm not saying you *shouldn't* be able to call in an APC for an active shooter), but they shouldn't be applied just to keep someone from flushing powder.

This is a completely separate issue from corruption and accountability of police, which I agree has generally improved over the years.

[fixer]

Thing is, incidents where some half trained kitted up DEA agent shoots a 70-year-old vet *are* rare... but a bunch of agents doing a midnight raid for a minor drug warrant are not. The militarization of police means, to me, the fact that officers are routinely dynamically entering houses the way you'd clear a terrorist den in Baghdad, on limited pretenses. Yes, I know they have a warrant... but in many cases that seems to add only a veneer of lawfulness to the process.

Yes, I know not all departments do it, that a lot of times it's DEA rather than local SWAT or what have you. But these aren't situations where there's an active shooter or a known violent felon in the house. It's random families getting thrown to the ground with a gun pointed to their head, all in the name of exigent circumstances. It happens hundreds of times a year in every major city, and when challenged about it the chief says that everyone followed standard procedure.

To me militarization of police means the application of military tactics to civilian populations. Sometimes those can be helpful (I'm not saying you *shouldn't* be able to call in an APC for an active shooter), but they shouldn't be applied just to keep someone from flushing powder.

This is a completely separate issue from corruption and accountability of police, which I agree has generally improved over the years.

Stole the words from my keyboard.

Thanks.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Whoa...I started an epic thread. Yeah, Me!! :cool:

That this has gone 11 pages shows that there are some strong feelings about the issue.

The point of the OP was that I think the federal mission creep sets my alarm bells ringing harder that the other stuff.

However, I'm also one of those who always thought of himself as a peace officer instead of a law enforcement officer....likely equal parts my upbringing and the fact my career started in TX, where "Peace Officer" is the official moniker. I have serious issues with laws that are malum prohibitum instead of mala pro se. The gambling raid cited above is a perfect example. Not only a use-of-force that did not need to occur, but if nothing else a waste of resources. I feel the same way about air assets being used for speed enforcement. I don't have a lot of use for the type of law officer (usually the younger bucks) that view the Constitution as a hinderance to their job performance instead of the standard to which they must hold themselves.

[BaiHu]

Just thought this was worth sharing and figured it was better to necropost than start a new thread.

Enjoy: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=350995231770404&set=vb.319307044939223&type=2&theater

FYI: You don't need to be on FB to see it...

[TAZ]

Great video that points out the very real need for specialized into that are capable of handling the those extraordinary situations that come up. SWAT teams have a place and anyone who argues that they are not needed is delusional. However, they aren't the only tool at a departments disposal. I think a very high number of departments understand that and run their organizations well. Sadly the few who step on their dicks and overuse the SWAT, no-knock strategy are making it hard for the rest.

[Trooper224]

Great video that points out the very real need for specialized into that are capable of handling the those extraordinary situations that come up. SWAT teams have a place and anyone who argues that they are not needed is delusional. However, they aren't the only tool at a departments disposal. I think a very high number of departments understand that and run their organizations well. Sadly the few who step on their dicks and overuse the SWAT, no-knock strategy are making it hard for the rest.

Yep.