Libs: We warned you about big govt. police militarization

[scott9050]

People are starting to get a clue that arming police to the teeth like they are at war while taking away our freedoms might not be such a good thing after all:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/ ... arization/

[dorminWS]

I've been harping on this for years. I'm glad this issue MAY finally be getting some traction. Problem is, while we may not quite yet have a full-fledged police state, we've already let the feds equip the cops as if we did. Damn near every small-town police Chief and every county Sheriff has now got his own little army. That's a lot of teeth to pull.

[Reverenddel]

CORRECT! AGREED!

The bad part? The LEO's that I know, actually HATE it... because it's usually the BADGE BULLIES on those teams, or Ex-military with a particular set of skills that do not involve ending things peacefully.

It'll take an act of congress to do the disarming.

[kelu]

Some day it will be a very dangerous profession.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuwtltSFpyk

[0ne5hot]

Speaking of Ukraine...

[Reverenddel]

Ferguson is gonna bring this to the forefront. Let's see if anything is done about it.

[Mindflayer]

I doubt it. People cheered as the Boston police rolled....

[mamabearCali]

This is ridiculous. Each side is behaving horribly. The protestors shod not riot. The police should not be assaulting people at random just cause they are on the street and most assuredly should not be gassing and taking cameras from journalists.

This is of control on both sides.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[BertMacklin]

Well I for one welcome this with open arms. People can't tell it's flooding till their feet are wet. If the few people trying to slow this down succeed then no one will see the problem in its entirety. Rather fighting this will only lead to slow incremental change towards the same end; the only difference being there will be no one to fight it. So let the cops Rambo it out, kicking down doors, shooting onlookers and harassing journalists. At this rate they'll run out of friends real quick.

[MarcSpaz]

I have two big concerns about trying to demilitarize local PD's.

1.) We need swat to handle things like "bank robbery turned hostage situation", or an active shooter situation. We don't want to wait hours for some federal LE agency to decide to deploy someone and actually get them out there.

2.) You can disarm the "department" all you want, the Constitution and the Bill or Rights means we don't stop anyone from owning any of these individually. There is no way of preventing a less than scrupulous Chief to get together a group of guys who own there own hardware to accomplish the same thing.

Granted, taking weapons away will help to a significant degree. However, in my opinion, the real solution is Accountability To The People.

Found this too...

Congratulations! Your tiny town has an MRAP and is ready for war

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... y-for-war/

By Radley Balko April 18

Here at The Watch, we’re looking for the smallest town in America to acquire an MRAP, or Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected armored personnel vehicle.

For the past few years, the Pentagon has been giving these vehicles to police departments across the country. The unwieldy behemoths have little real application in domestic police work. They’re designed for use on a battlefield. (The Pentagon offers no training to police departments when it gives the vehicles away. And they’ve been known to tip over.)

But police departments are snatching them up. It’s part of the general trend toward more militarized domestic police forces that’s been happening since about the early 1980s.

Below, I’ve assembled a quick (but by no means comprehensive) rundown of towns and counties to have recently required an MRAP from the Defense Department. But we want to find the tiniest town in America whose police force will be protected from any potential insurgent uprising. So far, the leading contender is Dundee, Mich., a sprawling metropolis of 3,900 people. If you hear of a town with fewer people acquiring an MRAP, please let me know.

Towns and counties that have recently acquired an MRAP:

Lyon County, Nev. (population: 51,000)
Watertown, Conn. (population 22,000)
Walla Walla, Wash. (population: 32,000)
Michigan City, Ind. (population: 31,000)
Mason City, Iowa (population: 28,000)
Madison, Ind. (population 12,000)
Willimantic, Conn. (population: 18,000)
Cape Girardeau, Mo. (population: 39,000)
Story County, Iowa (population: 91,000)
Manteca, Calif. (population: 71,000)
Jasper County, Iowa (population: 36,000)
Justice, Ill. (population: 13,000)
Dodge County, Wis. (population: 88,000)
Roanoke Rapids, N.C. (population: 16,000)
Nampa, Idaho (population: 83,900)
Merrillville, Ind. (population: 35,600)
St. Cloud, Minn. (population: 66,000)
Warren County, N.Y. (population: 65,500)
North Augusta, S.C. (population: 22,000)
Eureka, Calif. (population 27,000)

[ShotgunBlast]

I have two big concerns about trying to demilitarize local PD's.

1.) We need swat to handle things like "bank robbery turned hostage situation", or an active shooter situation. We don't want to wait hours for some federal LE agency to decide to deploy someone and actually get them out there.

2.) You can disarm the "department" all you want, the Constitution and the Bill or Rights means we don't stop anyone from owning any of these individually. There is no way of preventing a less than scrupulous Chief to get together a group of guys who own there own hardware to accomplish the same thing.

Granted, taking weapons away will help to a significant degree. However, in my opinion, the real solution is Accountability To The People.

A lot of cutting will do everyone some good. Crime is at 40 year lows but we see over 50,000 SWAT raids per year nationwide. What was once reserved to combat those hostage situations has now turned into serving drug warrants. Not exactly the best use of resources in my book, but now that you have the tools you have to use them in order to justify funding to keep them.

In the Richmond area, I'd be happy with Richmond having a SWAT team instead of Richmond, Chesterfield County, and Henrico County ALL having SWAT teams. Then maybe they'll only get used for those instances they were originally designed for while maintaining a somewhat fast turnaround time when they actually NEED to be deployed.

Accountability to the people is definitely part of the solution to which something other than just administrative leave as punishment as well as wearing cameras on duty (both to protect the officer as well as the civilian during interactions). Funny thing about those wearable cameras, in a study last year the use of cameras by police officers resulted in 88% fewer complaints against officers and a 60% drop in an officer's use of force compared to the previous 12 months. I think the use of wearable cameras is slowly catching on across the country, and is something that everyone can pressure their locality to adopt.

[mamabearCali]

I think the wearable cameras need to be a requirement now. They protect everyone. They are no longer horribly pricey. It is time to do that. Video keeps everyone honest as an ever present 3rd party witness.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Uh, I wouldn't be so quick to lob an "I told you so" at the "Libs" on this one.

In June 2014 a bill was introduced to the House by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) to stop giving local PD's military equipment, only 62 Congressman voted yes, and 355 voted no.

Of the 62 voting pro-liberty 43 were Democrats, and 19 were Republicans or roughly a 2:1 ratio.

You may recognize your guys name here:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll329.xml

[scott9050]

Uh, I wouldn't be so quick to lob an "I told you so" at the "Libs" on this one.

In June 2014 a bill was introduced to the House by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) to stop giving local PD's military equipment, only 62 Congressman voted yes, and 355 voted no.

Of the 62 voting pro-liberty 43 were Democrats, and 19 were Republicans or roughly a 2:1 ratio.

You may recognize your guys name here:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll329.xml

I speak as a gun owner and Libertarian leaning Republican. I am not a Congressman and others I know think as I do, so the statement is correct.

This is a win/win for gun owners. One of the angles is the mob violence and the need for firearms for self defense, the other is the liberal establishment saying "The government could never overstep its bounds and violate your rights" when the mention is brought up during gun rights debates. Both sides played out in this one story.

[Reverenddel]

I concur with Marc that for Bank Robberies/Hostage situations, Tactical Teams are appropriate.

But how often do we really have those? I would be okay with the STATE police having Tactical Teams, and getting rid of them at LOCAL levels!

Have cross-agency training, but the gear, and ownership of the action rest on the shoulders of the STATE LEO's!

I think if anything, between the layers of "US vs THEM" thinking that has been occurring lately in this society. We need to rethink who we want to represent us at ALL levels of guv'mint. They're the ones who "okay" these types of mentalities.

IE: Red-light cameras, stepped up traffic enforcement for revenue generation, passing regulations allowing LEO's a pass when abusing citizens recording actions, accepting equipment from the military, etc, etc.... ALL of these actions are COMMUNITY UNFRIENDLY!

[zykur]

More gov

rsz_1408159108533.jpg (26.3 KiB) Viewed 2259 times

Careful what you wish for.

[HotD]

Its not the presence of full auto weapons, the black gear, tear gas launchers, nor the armored cars that are the problem. Its the governmental policies that govern their use.....and yes, those items tend to be overused by certain police departments.

Remember this phrase: "Its better to have it and not need it, than need it, and not have it."

Rioters are throwing Molotov Cocktails, shooting others, looting stores, etc; in Ferguson, Missouri right now. If there is a need for such equipment, now is the time. Lets not hope that the politicians don't decide to do the same to the National Guard, who have just been ordered into the fray.

[MarcSpaz]

Well, we are coming back to my original point. Like Jim mentioned above, last night the citizens started escalating the violence, lighting more buildings and cars on fire, shooting other citizens, assaults, trying to violently over-run a police station.

Have it but don't abuse it... Now... now is the time for MO. to use their SWAT. Not when people are at peace.

[whipple]

Crime is at 40 year lows but we see over 50,000 SWAT raids per year nationwide.

Hey..Typo? If not, that's a startling statistic and I'd like a reference on that. If so, my apology.

Other than that, I understand accountability to the people. It's one of those strange (according to some folks) pillars our government was built on.

[BertMacklin]

Well, we are coming back to my original point. Like Jim mentioned above, last night the citizens started escalating the violence, lighting more buildings and cars on fire, shooting other citizens, assaults, trying to violently over-run a police station.

Have it but don't abuse it... Now... now is the time for MO. to use their SWAT. Not when people are at peace.

Isn't this the kind of response we expected had the Connecticut AWB actually been enforced (or will happen when they do so). I'm not really for one side or the other, the lines aren't as clear cut as that. Mind you I'm never going to be pro-looter or for assault on civilians. I'm just thinking a few years down the line things may be pushed the other way, and I'm sure many people will support bringing in assassins and bloodhounds on their fellow man. National Guard is coming now, if I recall correctly, and you know how everyone says the military will NEVER fire on unarmed or non-hostile civilians, with the small exception of all the times they did. More force is a lose-lose. People react to occupation and the suspension of rights the same way worldwide, resistance, and a lot of people, sometimes just stupid kids with rocks or just signs, end up getting killed.