quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
The corruption extends throughout government at all levels and functions. Most politician and government employees no longer think or act at all as if they are our servants. Rather a huge number think they are our masters and intend to rule - one way or another. Fear and force are the preferred tools of many in their ranks.

And the militarization of the police adds to that perception by the citizenry.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

The funny thing is, that's not even US police.

It's from somewhere in the Balkans.

Note the Serbian M84 MG mounted on the Hummer, and some flavor of European military utility vehicles parked behind.

quote:

The funny thing is, that's not even US police.
It's from somewhere in the Balkans.

You could be right... I don't know. It doesn't change the argument.
There are thousands of pictures, I just grabbed one to illustrate the point.

"Perhaps militarization weakens the community relations necessary for effective policing. The public seems to believe that using tactical equipment, weapons, and other resources appears “more closely akin to military operations than domestic law enforcement."
Here's the link:
https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/f...olice-militarization

quote:

The police should inspire confidence and trust in the average citizen on the street and I think all of this tactical gear and military MRAPs and such distance the citizen from the police and create an us/them perception. The dangerous trend is a loss of community trust.

I agree, and I think that it's not just public perception. A lot of cops are affected by the tacticool gear and general military style, and buy into idea that they should be distanced from the citizenry, living the us/them perception.

Before 9/11, I was in a line of traffic in rural Kentucky where a local cop was directing traffic after a major event let out at a state park. As I sat there watching him, I was struck by his black (not blue) very military cut uniform, boots, mirror shades, etc. The overall effect was completely different from the way cops looked when I was a kid. As I sat there, I tried to imagine a little kid who was lost or scared, going up to that cop to ask for help. No way was that going to happen. His appearance was too stand-offish and menacing.

He may have been one of the greatest human beings to ever walk the planet, but that wasn't the image he projected - and image means a lot. It affects not only public perception but how the police perceive themselves and their role.

No wonder. The article is garbage that has been vomited back by two notorious cop haters, Kraska and Balko.

Both have been caught lying and falsifying their “research” so much that I do not doubt for a minute that the author doesn’t actually care if the picture is right. If you’re going to publish garbage, what’s it matter to get the picture correct.

Follow the Money.

It's apparent that some people here would rather have unarmed law enforcement looking like Mr. Rogers.

Anyone over 50 can see the evolution of law enforcement in this culture. I say culture because I have come to understand that LE methods, equipment and attitudes are really a natural reaction to a gradual coarsening and decaying moral environment. We can put the blame on countless reasons why the culture has declined, but the blame cannot go solely on LE. Clearly some officers cross the line. I'm disturbed by what I've seen and experienced first hand. Rather than brand good men and women with the scarlet letter, I've determined to keep my distance and give most LE the benefit of the doubt. I also think that resistance is for the courts not the streets. That is the beginning of most of these conflicts.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:... It doesn't change the argument....

"Boy, you watch that knife!!"

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:... It doesn't change the argument....

It does change credibility... in a negative way...

So-called "militarization" is not a modern phenomenon. The police have adapted and utilized military-style weapons and equipment since the early 1900s, in response to threats from similarly-armed criminals.

And military-style clothing is also not new. Police have worn military-influenced uniforms from their initial inception in the 1800s, to one degree or another.

I understand some peoples fear of a line being drawn, and folks trying to figure out which side to be on, and who's gonna tell who what can and cannot be done. Unfortunately too many people in government want to be the dictators. Police are to protect and serve.

I sometimes wonder if some people either don't know about, have forgotten, or are simply ignoring what policing entailed prior to the 1980s or so.

Back in the mid-20th century (and before), it wasn't Mayberry out there, with Andy and Barney keeping their bullets in their pockets and solving everything with a friendly talk over a slice of Aunt Bea's pie. Prior to the 1980s or so, most crime-related problems were solved with violence. Cops were hired because of their toughness, physical size, etc. Most had military combat experience. A significant amount of physical manhandling was utilized for even routine arrests. If a subject resisted, officers routinely used koshes, blackjacks, saps, lead gloves, batons, and their bare hands to beat resisting suspects into submission, with rendering them unconscious through repeated blows to the head being a preferred method of taking them into custody. And fleeing suspects were shot instead of chased.

All of which was legal, and commonplace, and accepted (or at least overlooked) by society at the time. It wasn't until the 1980s that a series of Supreme Court cases put in place the modern limits on police use of force, deadly force against fleeing suspects, and the like.

The subsequent move to modern policing, with well-educated, well-trained officers utilizing people skills, negotiation, deescalation, less lethal tools, etc. is a comparatively recent thing, implemented within the last 40 years or so. Policing today is significantly "friendlier", more "civilized", less violent, less brutal, less dangerous to both the suspects as well as the public, and less "offensive" than it was mere decades ago.

Yet the protests against policing, and the hatred towards law enforcement, are more present than ever. With a number of such folks demanding a return to the imaginary "good old days" of a Mayberry that never was.

The police have been becoming “militarized” for at least 100 years as Army and Marine Corps veterans joined the forces after WW I. The BAR used to end Bonnie and Clyde’s run was a military weapon, and similar armament was much more common in LE armories in the last century’s ’20s than now. More to the point, though, where did the idea of those Sam Browne belts and flap holsters that were so common decades ago come from? The Sam Brownes weren’t necessary to support police officers’ sabers; they were adopted directly from military uniforms, as were the traditional police hats that departments like the NYPD still wear. Then there’s the rank structure that continues to this day: sergeants on up to the various military officer ranks. Chevrons and captain’s bars didn’t suddenly appear in the last few years.

As for the appearance of SWAT team members with their scary rifles, that’s exactly the antigunners’ mantra, and if a police officer has no legitimate use for a military-looking weapon, how can it possibly be justified for members of the public? The type of guns they carry don’t make it any more likely that police officers will shoot people without justification than the type of guns the rest of us prefer—including guns with direct military heritage—make it more likely we will shoot others without justification.

When I was a member of a SWAT team, we wore helmets and body armor for the protection they provided, along with knee pads and goggles. None of that was for a "look." Strangely enough, even shooting competitors wear the latter two items. The rest of the gear also serves specific purposes. Everything from radios to distraction devices and extra ammunition is carried for a reason. No one loads himself down with unnecessary stuff for the fun of it.

Even the color of uniforms manages to be controversial. Someone already mentioned that black was frightening, so what’s the alternative? OD green like FBI SWAT uses (used?) is too militaristic for some, but camouflage is another practical matter. It doesn’t make much difference for a large urban team, but some years ago during a local rural exercise, the role players quickly pointed out that the blue uniforms of some of the LEOs were very noticeable as they moved through the woods, and that was something the evaluators specifically recommended changing. Our team wore MultiCam before it was adopted by most military forces because of its effectiveness; sometimes it’s necessary to approach rural wooded sites in the hopes of not being seen too soon.

Oh, the “Good Old Days of Policing” argument. Probably my favorite.

Yes, let’s go back to the times of beating people upside the head with lead saps without recourse, coercing confessions without lawyers, blowing up city blocks, shooting fleeing suspects in the back, wearing Sam Brownes...etc.

Andy Griffith was a TV show, people. Ironically, the police chief and an officer of the town that show is based on got shot up a few years ago. Mayberry ain’t a Mayberry.

We’ve got the highest educated, best trained, and most professional police force in the history of the world right now. More oversight than ever before. To suggest otherwise is nuts.

It’s not perfect, but it’s the closest we’ve ever come.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Regarding the militarization of the police- I'm certain no one remembers, and those posts are long gone, but before September 11th, I was one of the voices on this board decrying the militarization of law enforcement. Before our world changed on that day, I saw no reason for non-Federal law enforcement agencies to be riding around in Bearcats, uniformed in the most tactical of tactical outfits. I thought it was silly and I thought it was a dangerous trend. But now, even if 9/11 had never occurred, just look at our society. We have more dangerous radicals than you can shake a stick at. We have so many people in this nation who just want to tear down all of it.

All of that may be true... and I don't disagree.
However, even if we have more dangerous radicals than ever before, I think it's still a dangerous trend.

The police should inspire confidence and trust in the average citizen on the street and I think all of this tactical gear and military MRAPs and such distance the citizen from the police and create an us/them perception. The dangerous trend is a loss of community trust.

Interesting. I've seen people applaud us when we show up in our MRAP to take down a drug house. They don't want that in their neighborhood, and don't seem to mind when we tac up to take on the bad guys.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
Oh, the “Good Old Days of Policing” argument. Probably my favorite.

Yes, let’s go back to the times of beating people upside the head with lead saps without recourse, coercing confessions without lawyers, blowing up city blocks, shooting fleeing suspects in the back, wearing Sam Brownes...etc.

That's a straw man argument, chongo. No one here argued for "beating people upside the head with lead saps without recourse, coercing confessions without lawyers, blowing up city blocks, shooting fleeing suspects in the back, wearing Sam Brownes...etc."

The only “Good Old Days of Policing” argument was for more inter-personal contact, on a peaceful basis, between police and citizens.

One member made the following comment:

quote:

Oh and the public, because the only time we come in contact them is when they're breaking the law.

And I think that's part of the problem. Police only seem to interact with the public when they are stopping someone or making an arrest. The Good in the “Good Old Days of Policing” was the cop walking a beat and talking to people. They had mostly positive contact with people which brought about trust with the citizenry.

The so-called “militarization” of the police has had no effect whatsoever on the fact that Officer Friendly isn’t walking a foot beat in virtually every jurisdiction in the nation. That changed most places long, long ago.

In fact, one of the ironies of modern life is the school resource officer program. No police officer has more close and direct contact with the public in the form of students, staff, and faculty, and often parents, than an SRO, and yet the program is something many decry as, “We never had anything like that when I was in school; a student would have had to murder someone for the police to be seen.”

The policing culture has changed in this country, for good and bad, as have most of our cultures over the years, but it’s not due to the fact that a small percentage of police officers get to wear helmets and ride around in armored vehicles.

quote:

wearing Sam Brownes..

The Sam Brown belt held up the normal and rather heavy revolvers of the day.

quote:

The only “Good Old Days of Policing” argument was for more inter-personal contact, on a peaceful basis, between police and citizens.

So true. The best part of the job was meeting the people. I was fortunate to live in a city thart had a decent number of travelers staying at one of out many hotels. I was able to meet people from all over the world.

Even many of the people we found ourselves charging with a crime were decent. When bored I'd sit down in the cellblock with a cup of coffee and bs with them. Many times they would drop any attitude or distancing and we'd have a normal conversation.

Sam Browne belts (“suicide straps”) disappeared from most police uniforms long before steel revolvers did. But the point is that even if the belts served a legitimate purpose, they, like the flapped holsters, military ranks and insignia, uniforms with conspicuous pockets and “saucer” caps, were adopted directly from military fashion and practices. All of those things had purposes that were legitimate to some degree in the eyes of those who adopted them, but that did not change the fact of where they originated or the fact that they were widely accepted by police agencies and without the public’s having kittens over their adoption.

To reiterate my position, though, it isn’t that law enforcement in this country is somehow perfect, but that focus on something like what equipment officers have available these days simplifies, and trivializes, the problem to an unrealistic degree. Such an approach has never been of much use in correcting problems like that. I am much more concerned about the much more fundamental social pressures and changes that the country is experiencing that are undermining the traditional rule of law.