You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Of police states and liberty.
- Thread starter Quartus
- Start date
As most are more scared of the drug dealers than the police, and the injured and potentially injured bystanders do not get organized, the interest of the public is of little concern.
The police have a valid fear of violence, many have been shot by "small time" dealers. You can never tell who is going to go ballistic. Was it Machinegun Kelly that cried like a baby when, outnumbered and outgunned, he was arrested? Then again, who would have thought two bank robbers in Northern California would be prepared and would think tactically? They clearly outclassed the police, not just in terms of armament.
Are no-knock warrents overused? Yes.
Argueably the state and liberty are always at odds. Government inevitably leads to more regulations/laws, leading to greater bureaucracy and more government. The interests of the group, interests of the individual, and the interests of those using this conflict for their own gain form an eternal conflict. The hope is that a society is mature enough to consider these issues rationally and try to come to a reasonable balance. Any balance, however rational, is a compromise, and in a compromise somebody always loses.
The police have a valid fear of violence, many have been shot by "small time" dealers. You can never tell who is going to go ballistic. Was it Machinegun Kelly that cried like a baby when, outnumbered and outgunned, he was arrested? Then again, who would have thought two bank robbers in Northern California would be prepared and would think tactically? They clearly outclassed the police, not just in terms of armament.
Are no-knock warrents overused? Yes.
Argueably the state and liberty are always at odds. Government inevitably leads to more regulations/laws, leading to greater bureaucracy and more government. The interests of the group, interests of the individual, and the interests of those using this conflict for their own gain form an eternal conflict. The hope is that a society is mature enough to consider these issues rationally and try to come to a reasonable balance. Any balance, however rational, is a compromise, and in a compromise somebody always loses.
The hope is that a society is mature enough to consider these issues rationally and try to come to a reasonable balance. Any balance, however rational, is a compromise, and in a compromise somebody always loses.
Well said. The problem, I fear, is that our society is NOT mature. For the most part we are a nation of spoiled brats who cannot see anything other than "What I want when I want it." Along with that (and inextricably linked to it) we are shortsighted and we are a nation of cowards. Oh, not as bad as the U.K. apparently is, but certainly not as we once were, and the trend is down. We prefer safety over liberty, time and again.
Clearly, we are out of balance on the subject of no-knocks, and the larger subject of the militarization of the civil authorities.
As a society, we have regressed in my lifetime (b. 1970). A sad testament to my generation (X).
Politically we have stopped listening to each other. Sometimes one side has a valid point with an impractical solution. Other times we ignore what is a problem to others. I trace the latest decent into this pit during the Clinton/Gingrich years.
The militarization of the civil services is, in retrospect, the inevitable companion to the nanny state. As a government dicates what can and cannot be done, it seeks the means to enforce these rules. As Benjamin Franklin warned, everlasting vigilance is the price we need to pay for freedom. We pay the price for being lazy, giving up that for which others died.
We do not prefer safety over liberty. We prefer personal comfort over liberty. Perhaps a sadder statement. Blood and circus' rule.
Symptoms of the previously mentioned regression include:
"Rage" - road rage, soccer rage, etc. No more personal responsibility
Lawsuits as the solution to all of life's problems, including what was brought on oneself. People even sue to be on teams, or when their children were dropped from teams for legitamate reasons.
The lowering of personal education and educational standards. Does anybody really believe that an "outcome" based education produces a person who understands issues? Does a lower educational base really help anybody but those manipulating the personal system?
Politically we have stopped listening to each other. Sometimes one side has a valid point with an impractical solution. Other times we ignore what is a problem to others. I trace the latest decent into this pit during the Clinton/Gingrich years.
The militarization of the civil services is, in retrospect, the inevitable companion to the nanny state. As a government dicates what can and cannot be done, it seeks the means to enforce these rules. As Benjamin Franklin warned, everlasting vigilance is the price we need to pay for freedom. We pay the price for being lazy, giving up that for which others died.
We do not prefer safety over liberty. We prefer personal comfort over liberty. Perhaps a sadder statement. Blood and circus' rule.
Symptoms of the previously mentioned regression include:
"Rage" - road rage, soccer rage, etc. No more personal responsibility
Lawsuits as the solution to all of life's problems, including what was brought on oneself. People even sue to be on teams, or when their children were dropped from teams for legitamate reasons.
The lowering of personal education and educational standards. Does anybody really believe that an "outcome" based education produces a person who understands issues? Does a lower educational base really help anybody but those manipulating the personal system?
Quartus,<snip>militarization of the civil authorities.
No getting around it. Federal Law Enforcement as well as the multitude of other .gov agencies have become the "standing army" the FF warned about.
May 1934 was a black spot for liberty.
IamNOTaNUT
New member
I have to disagree with you on this one . . .
This nitwit Quartus posted the quote from has been beating this same drum for about a dozen years and gets very little respect in the CJ community (research/educational as well as practitioners) because his views are so far off the edge of the screen.
Militarization of the civil authorities has become a bit of a cliche. People are running around afraid of the militarization of their local police. Fine. But what, exactly does it mean? Your local police do not have the same mission as the military. Your local police are not charged with the assignment to seek and destroy. They are not tasked with killing people and breaking things. They are there to enforce the law.
The main problem I have with the militarization argument is that it assumes cops are fools. It assumes that because they have BDU's and CQB training that they are going to rush right in and kill everything in sight, just like all the carnage they see in movies. Well, cops, by and large, are not fools, and they understand that they have a different mission from the military, and real life SWAT has nothing in common with what you see on TV or at the theater.
Now, I am not going to sit here and blow smoke and say that mistakes don't happen on occasion, but I will say that mistakes happen whether a person is wearing BDU's or a class A blue uniform. As long as police are human, there will be errors, sometimes tragic, but what is the alternative? Disband police and resort to anarchy? That won't benefit society in the least.
The fact of the matter is that the world has become a more violent place over the past few decades, and it is irresponsible to assert that our local police should revert back to the Maybury model to make a certain segment of our population "feel better." Don't give me any nonsense about cops being paid to face danger, etc, etc, etc. Yes, police are paid to do a dangerous job, and because of that we responsible citizens need to make sure they are trained and equipped in such a way as to minimize that danger as much as possible. The death of any public servant should be considered a tragedy, not something we expect.
Some military tactics have proven safer when serving high risk warrants, or ending hostage standoffs, than simply walking up to the front door with a coffee and a donut and ringing the bell. Those tactis should be used to give the police the greatest margin of safety.
We are not talking about leveling houses with mortar rounds or artillery, or hosing people down with crew served machine guns, but that is the image conjured up when people start talking about the militarization of law enforcement.
This nitwit Quartus posted the quote from has been beating this same drum for about a dozen years and gets very little respect in the CJ community (research/educational as well as practitioners) because his views are so far off the edge of the screen.
Militarization of the civil authorities has become a bit of a cliche. People are running around afraid of the militarization of their local police. Fine. But what, exactly does it mean? Your local police do not have the same mission as the military. Your local police are not charged with the assignment to seek and destroy. They are not tasked with killing people and breaking things. They are there to enforce the law.
The main problem I have with the militarization argument is that it assumes cops are fools. It assumes that because they have BDU's and CQB training that they are going to rush right in and kill everything in sight, just like all the carnage they see in movies. Well, cops, by and large, are not fools, and they understand that they have a different mission from the military, and real life SWAT has nothing in common with what you see on TV or at the theater.
Now, I am not going to sit here and blow smoke and say that mistakes don't happen on occasion, but I will say that mistakes happen whether a person is wearing BDU's or a class A blue uniform. As long as police are human, there will be errors, sometimes tragic, but what is the alternative? Disband police and resort to anarchy? That won't benefit society in the least.
The fact of the matter is that the world has become a more violent place over the past few decades, and it is irresponsible to assert that our local police should revert back to the Maybury model to make a certain segment of our population "feel better." Don't give me any nonsense about cops being paid to face danger, etc, etc, etc. Yes, police are paid to do a dangerous job, and because of that we responsible citizens need to make sure they are trained and equipped in such a way as to minimize that danger as much as possible. The death of any public servant should be considered a tragedy, not something we expect.
Some military tactics have proven safer when serving high risk warrants, or ending hostage standoffs, than simply walking up to the front door with a coffee and a donut and ringing the bell. Those tactis should be used to give the police the greatest margin of safety.
We are not talking about leveling houses with mortar rounds or artillery, or hosing people down with crew served machine guns, but that is the image conjured up when people start talking about the militarization of law enforcement.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
I understand that a meter maid/parking checker may need to be armed in case of a "rage" incident. IRS agents though?
Do IRS or Treasury agents every seize forfeited property from people who'd rather not forfeit it and are prone to bouts of gunfire?
Do they (the previously unarmed, non-enforcement by statute types) have access through interagency agreements to bringing along armed local, state or fed. ENFORCEMENT officers in the performance of their duties if they believe it necessary?
Oh wait, they DO.
If the statistics show that they are actually being or have a history of being killed/injured at a greater rate than the gen pop or, say, civilian process servers, more power to 'em. If it is just a "well everybody else gets guns and we MIGHT need them...someday...maybe...." then they can go pound sand.
And no, I'm not saying they have to start dropping like flies first, but I think it is yet another government solution in search of a (real, not potential) problem.
Oh wait, they DO.
If the statistics show that they are actually being or have a history of being killed/injured at a greater rate than the gen pop or, say, civilian process servers, more power to 'em. If it is just a "well everybody else gets guns and we MIGHT need them...someday...maybe...." then they can go pound sand.
And no, I'm not saying they have to start dropping like flies first, but I think it is yet another government solution in search of a (real, not potential) problem.
One problem with "militarization" of police agencies is that it has a psychological effect both in the way people perceive peace officers - and peace officers view themselves.
People will simply not perceive POs dressed up in black suits, masks and helmets - often without visible name tags - as they will those wearing a light blue or beige shirt, big silver or gold badge and other traditional acroutements and name plates. And this applies differently depending on whether this is a street encounter or in the home, but both are in the negative.
Image - self image - effects people whether they like to admit it or not. To a greater or lesser degree. Peace officers are less likely to view themselves as public servants dressed up in black suits and driving around in APCs as they are in the traditional garb etc.
But the biggest problem on the practical level seems to be the fact that police agencies are being asked to investigate too many alleged victimless "crimes" under laws which have become so perverse as to make them the fitting object of ridicule. And they have become involved in areas which government agencies have no business in becoming involved in whatsoever.
Perhaps the greatest precursor for all these "accidental" or "unjustified" shootings is this obsession with breaching private residences. Unless there's a population with the rabbit people mindset; whereby any masked men storming your home and shouting the magic words causes you to drop everything and prostrate yourselves, helpless - these incidents are going to increase.
Only in the cases of the most serious crimes against persons is there a justification for this type of thing. And even then it is much more prudent, reasonable, logical and rational, to make an arrest when the subject is in the open and out of a residence.
People will simply not perceive POs dressed up in black suits, masks and helmets - often without visible name tags - as they will those wearing a light blue or beige shirt, big silver or gold badge and other traditional acroutements and name plates. And this applies differently depending on whether this is a street encounter or in the home, but both are in the negative.
Image - self image - effects people whether they like to admit it or not. To a greater or lesser degree. Peace officers are less likely to view themselves as public servants dressed up in black suits and driving around in APCs as they are in the traditional garb etc.
But the biggest problem on the practical level seems to be the fact that police agencies are being asked to investigate too many alleged victimless "crimes" under laws which have become so perverse as to make them the fitting object of ridicule. And they have become involved in areas which government agencies have no business in becoming involved in whatsoever.
Perhaps the greatest precursor for all these "accidental" or "unjustified" shootings is this obsession with breaching private residences. Unless there's a population with the rabbit people mindset; whereby any masked men storming your home and shouting the magic words causes you to drop everything and prostrate yourselves, helpless - these incidents are going to increase.
Only in the cases of the most serious crimes against persons is there a justification for this type of thing. And even then it is much more prudent, reasonable, logical and rational, to make an arrest when the subject is in the open and out of a residence.
TheeBadOne
Moderator
The increasing Militarization of "The Police".
This is a hyperbole statement that has no factual base and is rooted in paranoia. How so?
The command structure of the modern Police Department has evolved several times since it's inception. During the mid 60's to early 70's the style of management was much more akin to the Military, with orders given to be strickly obeyed and individual initiative not encouraged (sometimes strictly). The modern model is more like "Coaching". The brass puts out a mission statement and it's up to the 1st line supervisors and street Cops to make it happen (in other words, they are flexible to the situation and it's changes).
Also, as someone else said, BDU's don't mean a thing.
As far as SWAT/TAC teams, you'd be surprised how many existed in the early 70's compared to today.
All the best
This is a hyperbole statement that has no factual base and is rooted in paranoia. How so?
The command structure of the modern Police Department has evolved several times since it's inception. During the mid 60's to early 70's the style of management was much more akin to the Military, with orders given to be strickly obeyed and individual initiative not encouraged (sometimes strictly). The modern model is more like "Coaching". The brass puts out a mission statement and it's up to the 1st line supervisors and street Cops to make it happen (in other words, they are flexible to the situation and it's changes).
Also, as someone else said, BDU's don't mean a thing.
As far as SWAT/TAC teams, you'd be surprised how many existed in the early 70's compared to today.
All the best