Jump to content

Is Anyone Else Concerned About How Militarized The Police Are Today?


Recommended Posts

I don't believe it's in the best interests of citizens if the police have all the latest and greatest toys.

Sure, it's warranted now because of the reason for the riots. But what happens in year 2045 and the citizens want to overthrow a corrupt government?

Do you trust the government to not open fire on citizens when that day comes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson County Texas has all the lastest and greatest toys. Boats, helicopters, armored vehicles, etc; yet only have 4 deputys on patrol at night. While I feel our policemen need to have the equipment they need. I think things have turned a little upside down right now. I would be interested in tvc's point of view on this topic...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to look at what the criminals are carrying.  

 

 

Good point.....

 

I can only imagine now with new technology, but remember years ago when the bank robbers came out all armored up? If they would have planned better and been a little smarter, they could of taken a bunch of cops with them.

 

I not saying don't be prepared, but "that day" is not close to being near. Those police officers have families and are normal people. They are not like what some would want you to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much in America, yet, but overseas there seems to always be some foreign country killing its own citizens.

Middle East uprisings, Ukraine , etc.

Can you give me one example of anything recently uncovered that would support your comment?
 
I need groups of people, not one off crazies.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.....

 

I can only imagine now with new technology, but remember years ago when the bank robbers came out all armored up? If they would have planned better and been a little smarter, they could of taken a bunch of cops with them.

 

I not saying don't be prepared, but "that day" is not close to being near. Those police officers have families and are normal people. They are not like what some would want you to believe.

 

The Northridge , CA bank robbery.  Yeah, the cops were outgunned and had to break into a gun shop to get heavy enough rifles to stop the robbers.  The bad guys had full body armor and AK-47s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Northridge , CA bank robbery.  Yeah, the cops were outgunned and had to break into a gun shop to get heavy enough rifles to stop the robbers.  The bad guys had full body armor and AK-47s.

 

True. But once SWAT was able to get their snipers in place, those guys were taken out by head shots where armor wasn't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe otherwise. Those police officers will follow their orders just like the nazis did, until the tide is at a clear turning point.

The threat of being tried for treason will be enough to deter them from deserting.

I honestly believe that if citizens ever have to take up arms and overthrow the government, most police officers will be with them, not against them, and likely using the "toys" that some are concerned about them having.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In afraid were headed down a dangerous path under the guise of combating the "bad guys".
 

 

And what is that dangerous path? 

 

I see so much about "where we are headed" in many forums and we are "continually losing our rights". Like many topics, many (or most) of the comments are out of ignorance. 

 

Examples are like a SCOTUS ruling giving some restrictions on police searches of vehicles and we are "losing our rights". I take "losing" as a present day situation and not something that happened generations ago. Yet when we take a look at it, is it true? 

 

I was reading another sports forum (hunting) about a SCOTUS ruling (Gant 2009) and the standard complaints came out. What they don't know if that the police have had almost unrestricted searches of vehicles under exigency that goes back to 1925 in Carroll v. US not long after cars first hit the streets. Move on to Belton v. NY in 1981 that gave officers unlimited wingspan searches of vehicles where the driver was arrested and the vehicle impounded. Almost two generations ago that case said that police could arrest you for not using your turn signal and could search your car. In Gant the SCOTUS stopped that practice and said that the police can only search if there is a reasonable belief that there is evidence in the crime committed so unless the cops can find evidence of not using your blinker under the seat or in the glove box, they cannot search. To make it brief, Gant in 2009 took away police authority that was previously allowed and yet people say that we are "losing our rights". It looks to me like many times the people are having their right reaffirmed, not taken away yet it is easy to say, "we are losing our rights" when the person saying it has no knowledge at all of what is being claimed.

 

That is but a single example but I can name more but that would be for a different thread.

 

So exactly what is this dangerous path? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe otherwise. Those police officers will follow their orders just like the nazis did, until the tide is at a clear turning point.

The threat of being tried for treason will be enough to deter them from deserting.
 

 

There is no such thing as treason or desertion for police officers. They are not the military and have no sworn duty to serve for a specified term like the military. A cop can legally walk away while in the middle of a call. If I am working a traffic accident or a family disturbance and half way through I say, "I have had enough of this nonsense, I quit", there is nothing that can be done to me criminally. I can and will be fired like any other employee that walks off the job but there is no charge of treason, being AWOL, etc. 

 

Just like my previous post, do people really know what they are talking about? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any reservations about the equipment that law enforcement officers have other than if we are wasting money on something extremely ridiculous. If it has a legitimate use, then I hope when the need arises, the police have it handy and it serves it's purpose.
I have a bigger problem with no-knock warrants and swat teams being used for situations where a phone call or two officers visiting a residence could have taken care of the problem. If someone is holding a group of people hostage, or has barricaded themself in with an arsenal of weapons and is wanted for murder, then sneaking in an catching them off guard will probably save lives. But, to bust down the door, shoot the pet dog, and hold an entire family at gun point over the teenage kid selling drugs out the house is trying to prove something other than enforcing the law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that completely drives me insane are the patrol cars with the translucent lettering identifying the vehicle. If it is used for undercover purposes, it is justifiable. Using an unmarked, or barely marked vehicle as a traffic enforcement vehicle is ridiculous. I do not want my wife or children being pulled over out here in the national forest by a vehicle that is not clearly marked. There are just enough creeps and sickos out there to make this into a safety issue. The only possible reason to use these vehicles for traffic enforcement is to write more tickets. A ticket is supposed to work as a deterrent and promote safety, not as a fundraiser. Hiding the identity of these officers does not promote safety, it decreases it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In afraid were headed down a dangerous path under the guise of combating the "bad guys".
 

Agreed

Side thought:  when crimes are not punished quickly and harshly it helps to promote the police having more stuff for a couple of reasons. 
They have a naturally dangerous profession and want to go home to eat cornbread and beans when their shift ends.
Not punishing criminals quickly and harshly allows bad guys to network and become more embolden which i turns entices the younger generation to follow in their footsteps. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. But once SWAT was able to get their snipers in place, those guys were taken out by head shots where armor wasn't there.

 

Not exactly. 

 

SWAT took a long time to get there. Once they arrived, they have a close in shootout between vehicles and one of them and the other was shot by an officer but also shot himself in the head, committing suicide when he saw he had no way out. 

 

In any case, it took SWAT to be there and the 100 or so patrol officers that responded had no answer for two guys that shot several people including officers. That is the same SWAT that saved the day that people are now saying is too much policing. 

 

A lot of people don't want the cops to have big guns or armored vehicles unless they are being held hostage, then they want the cops to have every tool available. 

 

I spent 10 years on SWAT and they are no more military like today than they were 30 years ago. What we have today is 24 hour news and social media. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In about 1985-86 our entire department was trained in riot tactics after a lot of union unrest in the area back then. We carried the same equipment back then (riot batons, shields, helmets, rubber bullets, wooden rounds/knee knockers, tear gas, etc.). The difference between then and now is the uniforms. 

 

We used to wear our regular duty gear is that it all we had. We had to wear the $35 dress shirts with the creases sewn in made for all the jewelry we hang on them and dress uniform pants. Today they wear over-the-counter BDU style uniforms. That is the difference, the cop wear utility gear instead of dress uniforms to riots. That for some reason offends the public and makes the same police officers now "militarized" because they took off their dress blues for riots. I am assuming that if they wore the blues again like in the 1968 Chicago riots, it would be okay. Even many of the helmets were blue. 

 

Google 1968 Chicago Riots and click on images and see what the officers in a riot looked like back then. Almost nothing has changed except the training the officers receive and the uniforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • No offense, but both sides do it.  The Rs in Texas want to do away with decades of precedent and demand that Dems are no longer given chair positions on any committees in the Tx House. It sounds reasonable enough, until you arrive at a point when the Ds enjoy a single seat majority in the house, select the most leftist speaker of all times, and the refuse to give Rs any say in the legislative process by refusing to give them any committee chairs.     Experience has shown me that any time a party seeks to consolidate power in a legislative body, it backfires.    What I don’t like is a world where we cheer for Manchin for doing his own thing, but also re-elect guys like Paxton and Patrick when they make threats to R Legislators if they don’t do exactly what the Radical Right demands. Our Rep here in Hardin County lost his spot for voting against private school vouchers-his wife is a teacher. He also voted his conscience on the Paxton impeachment.  It cost him his seat…. Not because of the will of the voters in his district, but because if millions of outside dollars pumped into the race from outside the district and even an endorsement of his unknown challenger by Donald Trump himself.    Why do people like you applaud Manchin for being his own man and then vote against Phelan for doing the same thing?
    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...