Anybody seen the movie The Negotiator? Think about the level of militarization the police had in that film.

Here's a copy of testimony recently given before Congress:

Our Militarized Police Departments
Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime

Radley Balko | July 2, 2007

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

It’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. The military’s job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It’s dangerous to conflate the two.

But that’s exactly what we’re doing. Since the late 1980s, Mr. Chairman, thanks to acts passed by the U.S. Congress, millions of pieces of surplus military equipment have been given to local police departments across the country.

We’re not talking just about computers and office equipment. Military-grade semi-automatic weapons, armored personnel vehicles, tanks, helicopters, airplanes, and all manner of other equipment designed for use on the battlefield is now being used on American streets, against American citizens.

Academic criminologists credit these transfers with the dramatic rise in paramilitary SWAT teams over the last quarter century.

SWAT teams were originally designed to be used in violent, emergency situations like hostage takings, acts of terrorism, or bank robberies. From the late 1960s to the early 1980s, that’s primarily how they were used, and they performed marvelously.

But beginning in the early 1980s, they’ve been increasingly used for routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. And thanks to the Pentagon transfer programs, there are now a lot more of them.

This is troubling because paramilitary police actions are extremely volatile, necessarily violent, overly confrontational, and leave very little margin for error. These are acceptable risks when you’re dealing with an already violent situation featuring a suspect who is an eminent threat to the community.

But when you’re dealing with nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police actions create violence instead of defusing it. Whether you’re an innocent family startled by a police invasion that inadvertently targeted the wrong home or a drug dealer who mistakes raiding police officers for a rival drug dealer, forced entry into someone’s home creates confrontation. It rouses the basest, most fundamental instincts we have in us – those of self-preservation – to fight when flight isn’t an option.

Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, estimates we’ve seen a startling 1,500 percent increase in the use of SWAT teams in this country from the early 80s until the early 2000s. And the vast majority of these SWAT raids are for routine warrant service.

These violent raids on American homes, when coupled with the imperfect, often ugly methods used in drug policing, have set the stage for disturbingly frequent cases of police raiding the homes not only of recreational, nonviolent drug users, but the homes of people completely innocent of any crime at all.

Take a look at the map on the monitor (http://www.cato.org/raidmap). This is a map of the botched paramilitary police raids I found while researching a paper for the Cato Institute last summer. It is by no means inclusive. It only includes those cases for which I was able to find a newspaper account or court record. Based on my research, I’m convinced that the vast majority of victims of mistaken raids are to afraid, intimidated, embarrassed, or concerned about retaliation to report what happened to them.

Pay particular attention to the red markers on the map. Those are the approximately 40 cases where a mistaken raid resulted in the death of a completely innocent American citizen.

The most recent example of course is the drug raid in Atlanta last fall that killed 92-year old Kathryn Johnston. Ms. Johnston mistook the raiding police officers for criminal intruders. When she met them with a gun, they opened fire and killed her. The police were acting on an uncorroborated tip from a convicted felon.

I’d estimate I find news reports of mistaken raids on Americans homes about once a week. If you’re wondering, yes, there was one just this week. This past Saturday, in Durango, Colorado, police raided the home of 77-year-old Virginia Herrick. Ms. Herrick, who takes oxygen, was forced to the ground and handcuffed at gunpoint while officers ravaged through her home.

They had the wrong address. In just the last month, there have been mistaken raids in New York City; Annapolis, Maryland; Hendersonville, North Carolina; Bonner County, Idaho; and Stockton, California.

In each case, innocent American citizens had the sanctity of their homes invaded by agents of the government behaving more like soldiers at war than peace officers upholding and protecting our constitutional rights.

800 times per week in this country, a SWAT team breaks open an American’s door, and invades his home. Few turn up any weapons at all, much less high-power weapons. Less than half end with felony charges for the suspects. And only a small percentage end up doing significant time in prison.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Congress consider ending the federal incentives that are driving this trend, and that the Congress reign in the copious use of SWAT teams and among federal police agencies.

There are appropriate uses for these kinds of tactics. But the bulk of the dramatic rise in paramilitary police operations is attributable to inappropriate use of SWAT teams for routine warrant service.

It’s time we stopped the war talk, the military tactics, and the military gear. America’s domestic police departments should be populated by peace officers, not the troops of an occupying military force.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/121169.html

...so perhaps we should let them go out without body armor armed with night sticks?

There's no denying that it is a tricky problem balancing government power with security. But to analyze this "problem" without also noting the increased problems within society and the increased violence, quality of equipment, and ruthlessness of criminals, is futile.

No, we should stop allowing corrupt judges to give cops blank, unsigned warrants, and we should define the rules of engagement regarding SWAT operations. I can think of a handful of movies off the top of my head that showed excessive militarization by police: The Negotiator, The Fugitive, and Shooter.

Just keep in mind that police forces both local and federal are given far more firepower than the citizens whose rights they are supposed to be upholding. All it takes is a corrupt cop or department (http://www.badcopnews.com/) and you have a police state. Also remember that we the citizens of this country are not allowed to use most of the equipment that our "public servants" get to play with.

It's cliche, but the police have a 'do as I say not as I do' mentality. Do you ever watch those A&E shows, Dallas SWAT, KC SWAT, etc.? I'm often surprised at the force which they enter homes. They pull up, throw tow ropes over gated doors and windows, rip them off, go in guns blazing, make arrests, then afterwards you see the charges. One particular show cracked me up. "One man was released without being charged and the other was charged w/ possession of marijuana." Wow, way to waste your time and endanger alll those citizens for a measley possession arrest. I hope no one turns me in for occasionally having a small amount of weed. Hopefully my house never gets raided, and my family endangered. Don't forget the flash grenades they aimlessly throw into windows. What if one landed near my infant son? Stuff is rediculous.

I have watched that show Dallas SWAT. You are exactly right. Can't even add anything other than:
/\
||
||

WHAT HE SAID.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that use of force ultimately saves lives. Both of those who protect us, and most of the time, those upon whom they will be enforcing the law.

Bursting down the door in a strike fashion, overwhelming (arguably disproportionate) force is to reduce the loss of life.

If you want to take issue with the judicial branch, that's fine. But to attack the police or law enforcement is foolish. When they have reason to believe that a violent criminal is behind a door, why would you want to deny them the element of surprise or overwhelming force? Giving the suspect time to load and aim?

I'll give Fossten the benefit of the doubt and presume he just wants to see a more responsible use of this force. IE- not using a battering ram to bust a small time pot dealer. But to say that the mere fact the police often utilize this power when attempting to take the most reprehensible criminals off the street (including drug dealers, killers, terrorists, ect) is short sighted. And I don't want to see any cops killed because they were unprepared, unarmed, or out numbered.

Yes, but at what point does it become too much force? No one wants to see police needlessly harmed, but they swore an oath to protect and serve. These innocent victims didn't.

Yes, but at what point does it become too much force? No one wants to see police needlessly harmed, but they swore an oath to protect and serve. These innocent victims didn't.

At what point does it become too much force?? Never. Because, what you're failing to note is that while this huge presence might be called upon, most of the time deadly force is not used.

It's terribly inconvenient when a mistake is made, but rarely does it involve the loss of innocent life. As bad as it may seem when an old lady gets hand cuffed, she's not dead.

...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly. But those are rare exceptions. Ultimately, whenever people are involved, mistakes are sometimes made, and bad people sometimes find them self in a place of power. I recognize this.

I also get annoyed when I hear people make comments like yours "They took an oath to protect and serve....." that doesn't mean they should be expected to take absolutely needless risk that prevent hem from ever returning home to their families.

And if the police didn't have these swat teams, who would deal with the high threat crisis situations that they deal with? The military IS NOT permitted to function like that, so now what? Should the police also stop hiring sharp shooters? And how many times have you seen or heard of a hostage situation and wished they could just end the situation with a well placed shot from a sharp shooters Remington 700?

The police and law enforcement are constantly put in a bad position. These are men and women who have valiantly and nobly put themselves between us the predators in society. They don't do it for the money. And as criminals become more sophisticated, more violent, and better armed, they also have to fight a public that is more jaded, more ungrateful, more hostile, and lawyered up.

U go into a potentially life or death situation, u would be stupid not to use overwhelming force if it is an option. "playing fair" is for fools.

Besides, the police just enforce the laws. If u are worried about a "police state" worry that the laws they are enforcing are going overboard. the police state fear can be a legitimate one , (in certian places) but know where the blame should fall. Getting mad at the police is like getting mad at a Kwik shop clerk for the price of gas...

...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly.

I disagree. There are way too many instances where police decide to use lethal force where it wasn't warranted. Literally thousands of cases where the police used lethal force in a situation that could have been resolved without the loss of life. But their 'training' doesn't allow for those instances where less-than-lethal would be appropriate. In most instances I consider it legalized murder on behalf of the police.

Case in point. I guy standing 5 feet away that supposedly "lunges" at a police officer who then shoots the guy 5 times point blank in the chest.

Please!:rolleyes:

One shot to the leg would have solved the situation. Unfortunate, but the police on too many occasions 'choose" to end a life instead of save one.

Thousands of other examples can be provided if necessary to prove my point.

Take a look at the map from the article. There are your examples:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

While it heartens me to see that a few of you right-wingers see the dangers of "enhanced" police powers, you're only talking about cases of physical entry into homes. I consider wire-tapping and other forms of government collection of information on citizens to be just as intrusive and just as susceptible to mistakes and outright abuse. You may trust the current administration with these powers (I certainly do not) but do you really want some gun-grabbing Democratic administration reading your email, examining your credit card statements, and listening in on your phone calls? Is this still the land of the free and the home of the brave? Please, for the love of all that is Good and all that is American, quit living in fear and say NO to this!

Take a look at the map from the article. There are your examples:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

While it heartens me to see that a few of you right-wingers see the dangers of "enhanced" police powers, you're only talking about cases of physical entry into homes. I consider wire-tapping and other forms of government collection of information on citizens to be just as intrusive and just as susceptible to mistakes and outright abuse. You may trust the current administration with these powers (I certainly do not) but do you really want some gun-grabbing Democratic administration reading your email, examining your credit card statements, and listening in on your phone calls? Is this still the land of the free and the home of the brave? Please, for the love of all that is Good and all that is American, quit living in fear and say NO to this!

Tommy, I AGREE WITH YOU. The cops have too much power, especially WRT getting stacks of blank signed warrants for wiretaps and home searches. And if you have the means to defend yourself in court, they freeze your bank accounts and assets so you cannot use those means. Then you're stuck with a public defender making a plea deal and your life is history.

One shot to the leg would have solved the situation. Unfortunate, but the police on too many occasions 'choose" to end a life instead of save one.

Thousands of other examples can be provided if necessary to prove my point.

That's not a good example. And I know that you know enough about firearms to know that it would needlessly jeopardizes the safety of the officer to ask him to target a limb in a high stress situation like that. And it's also not an effective way to quickly drop and aggressor and eliminate the risk to the officer and those around.

Furthermore, if an officer uses lethal force, that means the aggressor is within a just a few steps away, and a bullet to the limb will be ineffective at preventing him from reaching the officer.

But even this problem is being addressed as police forces increasing supply their force with non-lethal weapons such as tazers and sprays.

That's not a good example. And I know that you know enough about firearms to know that it would needlessly jeopardizes the safety of the officer to ask him to target a limb in a high stress situation like that. And it's also not an effective way to quickly drop and aggressor and eliminate the risk to the officer and those around.

Furthermore, if an officer uses lethal force, that means the aggressor is within a just a few steps away, and a bullet to the limb will be ineffective at preventing him from reaching the officer.

But even this problem is being addressed as police forces increasing supply their force with non-lethal weapons such as tazers and sprays.

I agree with the part about not shooting at limbs. Can often cause crippling injuries and leave people as invalids.

I disagree with the premise that tasers are non-lethal. It is a fact that many people who have been tasered have died.

We must reconcile due process and the 4th amendment with the EXTREME militarization of the police and federal agencies. Everybody's got helicopters and tanks now except for citizens. Why in the world should the police need a tank or a gunship, or even fixed-wing aircraft for that matter?

I agree with the part about not shooting at limbs. Can often cause crippling injuries and leave people as invalids.
If you're charging a cop, I'm less worried about paralysis than I am the fact that a limb shot usually doesn't drop a motivated assailant and at that range it wouldn't prevent them from being able to reach the officer and assault him.

I disagree with the premise that tasers are non-lethal. It is a fact that many people who have been tasered have died.

It is also a fact that thousands of people have been tasered and are perfectly fine.

People can die for any number of reasons. Tasers are considered safe enough so that many forces require their police officers to experience a shot with a taser during training.

We must reconcile due process and the 4th amendment with the EXTREME militarization of the police and federal agencies. Everybody's got helicopters and tanks now except for citizens. Why in the world should the police need a tank or a gunship, or even fixed-wing aircraft for that matter?

So in a hostage situation or something major like that, would you like to have a bunch of British bobbies running around with sticks?

After the 1997 bank robbery in LA, where two assailants were walking the streets covered, head to toe, in body armor, wielding multiple machine guns and semi-automatic handguns, and extra ammo- did you think it was good that the officers who were trying to stop them were primarily unarmored armed with .38 revolvers?

What police force has a tank? Or do you mean armored vehicles but use the misleading imagery of a tank because it has a huge machine gun and howitzer on it?

And what police force uses a gunship?

And why wouldn't they use airplanes? Are helicopters bad too? Should we deny law enforcement technology and let the criminals in society exploit technology alone?

How far do you take it? Should the cops during the 20s and 30s been able to arm themselves with BAR rifles? Were semi-auto handguns too much? How about repeating rifles when most people were still using single shot, barrel loaded weapons?

Are you anticipating some kind of violent repression of rights where the local PD, the guy who lives down the street from you, is going to suppress the city with the local police station's MP5?

Or will your next thread be about how superior the MILITARY weapons are compared to what even the police and civilians have access too? Would you like to make it legal to install surplus Soviet SAM missile launchers in areas zones commercial?

Using technology to protect law enforcement makes sense. You end up with chaos and harm to society when the criminal element is better armed than law enforcement. History shows us that. So taking issue with the gear is foolish.

Calabrio,
I attempted to offer you an olive branch and encourage discussion of how we could reconcile the problem that I see with the problem you see. Instead of accepting my offer, you have lashed out in attack mode. If that's the way you want it, then we will never get anywhere. I actually think there are solutions to this problem, so it's too bad.

I'm amazed at the way you attempt to wriggle out of my taser comment. Your argument is that since many people DON'T die, it doesn't really matter that many DO? That's an argument more typical of Johnny, not you.

Your British bobbies with sticks comment is a straw dog, designed to make my comment look absurd. The problem is that I never said anything of the sort. That is you putting words in my mouth.

I really don't have time to answer every point that you made, although most of your points were really rhetoric designed to distract from the real issue raised by the article I posted, which you have glossed over and excused.

You are looking at a very one-sided view of this. You refuse to address the issues with the 4th Amendment, even so far as to debunk them by pre-empting any discussion of violations with a "...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly. But those are rare exceptions."

That statement is false. These are not rare exceptions; they happen EVERY DAY in this country. You really should go to badcops.com and check it out.

If you want to discuss this rationally and point by point, then fine. But all you're trying to do now is bury me in rhetoric.

But I can do the same thing:

Is the 4th Amendment important to you? Do you believe that law and order are to be preferred over personal liberty? Do you support the Constitution as it is written? Do you believe the 2nd amendment is for all citizens, and if so, do you believe that all citizens should have the personal firearm technology that the state has, or should we all just have ball muskets?

Do you not know about the millions of people who have been murdered by their own governments AFTER the governments passed laws restricting the level of firearms ownership? The number is in the hundreds of millions. Do you really believe naively that this could never happen here? Do you not remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Ken Ballew?

Do you care more about the rights of police, who are our public servants, than you do about the rights of the citizens of this country, who pay the salaries of those who oppress them?

Do you have a close family member in "law enforcement" and as such take all discussions of this nature personally?

Have you ever read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross? If not, would you consider reading it to obtain the perspective of the other side, a perspective you obviously do not agree with?

It's an old maxim that the government should fear the people, not the other way around.

I'm amazed at the way you attempt to wriggle out of my taser comment. Your argument is that since many people DON'T die, it doesn't really matter that many DO? That's an argument more typical of Johnny, not you.
Tasers are safe. There are isolated incidences where a person with a pre-existing medical condition does suffer cardiac arrest as a result of the stimulus, but this is rare. Clearly, the instrument is safe enough so that each officer is tasered at least once during their training.

If you think that tasers are too severe, what alternative do you leave law enforcement? Having to wrestle a hostile down? Lethal force is the escalation of force past this. Those are much more dangerous.

And the MISUSE of the taser does need to be watched. It shouldn't be used as punishment. It is to be used only when a person presents a danger to the officer or them self.

Again, do you wish to put law enforcement in a position where they are unable to defend themselves? Clearly, ABUSES of power are unacceptable. But to deny the guy on the street the tools necessary to be safe is unacceptable as well.

Your British bobbies with sticks comment is a straw dog, designed to make my comment look absurd. The problem is that I never said anything of the sort. That is you putting words in my mouth.
It's the extreme. Where do you want to draw the line? If you think that the bobbies are going to far, should we limit law enforcement to simply using .38 revolvers? Limit the amount of ammo they can carry?

I really don't have time to answer every point that you made, although most of your points were really rhetoric designed to distract from the real issue raised by the article I posted, which you have glossed over and excused.
No, I did not miss the point of the article. I repeatedly have said, the author and some of the posters in this thread are attacking the wrong issue. The "militarization" of the police, really based on appearance, is as foolish as attack assault rifles because they look scary. It's the not the equipment that is the issue, it's the way the force is used.

I want the police department and law enforcement to have every tool and piece of hardware necessary to keep them safe and confident. I want the the restrictions on the guys in suits and ivory towers, far away from the streets.

If you want to discuss limiting the power of government, that's great. If you want to make the focus the appearance and equipment provided to guys like you and I who might make the sacrifice to dedicate our life to the community in law enforcement, I take great issue.


You are looking at a very one-sided view of this. You refuse to address the issues with the 4th Amendment, even so far as to debunk them by pre-empting any discussion of violations with a "...and yes, I know, I'm sure we can all find isolated incidence of lethal force being used incorrectly. But those are rare exceptions."
Because someone will inevitably bring up Ruby Ridge or some story about the police bursting into an old ladies house thinking it's a crack den doesn't mean you castrate the police department.

I haven't addressed the constitutional aspect of this argument. I haven't addressed the policies associated with search warrants and seizures. I have focused only on the equipment.

That statement is false. These are not rare exceptions; they happen EVERY DAY in this country. You really should go to badcops.ORG and check it out.

There are over 800,000 law enforcement officers in the U.S.
The fact that you can find horror stories on a website dedicated to finding horror stories is no surprise.


If you want to discuss this rationally and point by point, then fine. But all you're trying to do now is bury me in rhetoric.
There's no rhetoric. I'm pretty much single issue in this thread. Whether police have access to an MP5 or just a .38 is not the issue. And by making that the focus, by the author opting to attempt to rely on an intimidating visual, rather than a strong constitutional argument, he loses the debate.


The 4th Amendment is important.
I believe that law and order and personal liberty, by their very nature, are at odds with each other. Anarchy and Law & Order are in stark contrast. There is a balance that has to be reached. Democratic process, local government, and social contracts find that balance.
I support the constitution as it is written.
I actively support the 2nd amendment.

Now you ask if citizens should have the some technology as the state. The implication of the author is to the contrary. I took it to mean, NOT that the citizens should have greater access to weapons, but that we should DISARM the police.
I do think that the public should have greater access to weapons. But are you asking if I should be allowed to buy a nuclear submarine? Or if I should be able to buy a retired F-14 from the Middle East armed with Phoenix missiles?

I'm well aware of the consequences of disarming the population and I'm passionately opposed to such actions.

Do you really believe naively that this could never happen here? Do you not remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Ken Ballew?
Again, I'm not arguing this case. In principle we're not in disagreement on these issues.

Do you care more about the rights of police, who are our public servants, than you do about the rights of the citizens of this country, who pay the salaries of those who oppress them?
As repeatedly states, I think it's critical that the police are properly equipped. The POLICIES of the force have little to do with their equipment. Four bad officers, or officers acting on bad policy, can shoot a guy coming out of shower just as easily with a .38 revolver as they can with a 9mm with a laser sight.

In fact, overwhelming power might have SAVED the life of Ballew. A lightning strike might have caught him off guard, avoiding the confusion, and resulted in no shots being fired. Had it been done right, no one would have been killed. In fact, had those guys been WELL TRAINED they wouldn't have burst into the wrong house. They wouldn't have gone in so poorly organized, roughed up the family, or given Ballew time to get an old revolver and stumble upon them.

Ruby Ridge as well. Better trained, better equipped, better organized LE officers would have prevented the loss of life.

Do you have a close family member in "law enforcement" and as such take all discussions of this nature personally?
You put "law enforcement" in quotes, as though you have disdain for the men and women who jeopardize their lives to keep the streets safe. The next irrational step would be putting some painting about the "Fascist" cops and submitting them to a San Fransisco exhibition. ;)

Have you ever read "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross? If not, would you consider reading it to obtain the perspective of the other side, a perspective you obviously do not agree with?
And to clarify, my focus through the thread has not been the employment or interpretation of the constitution in this thread. I have been focused on the visual created by the author, using the "scary" visual of a militarized police force to persuade his reader. What the hell is militarized mean? Good equipment and training? Does it serve anyones interest to hire the Keystone Cops? The focus of his article shouldn't have been what they have, if anything it should HOW IS IT USED or the policy direction.

Should we roll back restrictive gun control legislation. Absolutely
Should the police force have every tool available. Yes

But criminals always try to use technology to their advantage and government is always slow to respond. So I do not think we should disarm the police or civilian law enforcement because they have access to better stuff than the public. At the same rate, the public should have more access as well.

It's an old maxim that the government should fear the people, not the other way around.

That can only happen when the people are not DEPENDENT upon the Government for both their livelihood and personal security.

American liberalism is destroying that independence. When the average person looks to Washington for their health care, their retirement, for their insurance, for their income, and for their personal protection, the government has nothing to fear. Otherwise we are no stronger than a 6 year old kid threatening to run away from home yelling "I hate you, I wish you were dead" to their parents.

At what point does it become too much force?? Never. Because, what you're failing to note is that while this huge presence might be called upon, most of the time deadly force is not used.

It's terribly inconvenient when a mistake is made, but rarely does it involve the loss of innocent life. As bad as it may seem when an old lady gets hand cuffed, she's not dead.



I wonder how you feel about this story, Cal. It was, as you put it, "terribly inconvenient." But I guess it's best for cops to err on the side of THEIR OWN SAFETY ALWAYS, right? And the hell with the citizens they are supposed to protect?

This story was posted on another forum.

A "Quality" Arrest & Prosecution.

This story is first hand from my best friend's wife. One of her clients lives use to live on a couple of acres in county jurisdiction a few hundred yards beyond city limits. They used to enjoy a lifestyle that include activities not allowed within the city limits.

A month or so ago, early on Saturday morning, they awoke to some crows making a ruckus outside their bedroom window. The husband steps out with his shotgun and blows a crow to Hell then he returns to bed. A couple hours later, while the husband was taking a shower and the wife still in bed, a full SWAT team from the CITY POLICE bust in through the front door! After violently attacking and handcuffing the couple (both naked) the police proceeded to toss the entire house. They took all the firearms along with the soapy naked husband and didn't allow the woman to dress until on their way out when they removed her handcuffs. He was arrested for discharging a firearm within city limits along with a dozen other violations like disturbing the peace, resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, and so on.

After the handcuffs were on them both, the entire event turned very jovial for the cops whom appeared to take a lot of pleasure from tossing the house in front of the naked owners. They placed a postal scale from the home office and a kitchen scale from the counter top together in front of the wife while questioning her about how these are used, (because these are both "drug paraphernalia"!) There were other things similar to this but the scales really bother me because I have and use both for their intended purposes.

After a weekend in jail the following Monday morning the man goes before the judge who hears the charges. Then the judge asks the man 'what were you thinking?' The man tells the judge he lives in county jurisdiction and may shoot guns on his property as he wishes and the city cops do not authority there! The judge turns back to the prosecutor who then tells the judge, 'the city of ******, CA, annexed that area effective Friday @ midnight therefor it was within city jurisdiction for about six hours at the time of the violation.' The judge asks our man how long he knew about the annex, the answer is 'this is the first I heard of it'. The judge is not impressed with the prosecutor, however, the best he can do is set bond for $20,000. This costs our victim $2,000 in non-refundable hard cash.

Next step is legal help. The lawyer needs $4,000 up front and he requests all relevant documents from both the city & county as well as sending out subpoenas for every authority figure all the way down to the dog catcher and bus driver. At the preliminary hearing the defense attorney doesn't have any of the documents requested, however, he does have a stack of letters from everyone subpoenaed pleading ignorance & requesting dismissal. The judge hears the charges and turns to the defense. The defense suggests a phone call to the home owner and mailing a ticket would have been a much better use of resources - not to mention all the risks the SWAT operation elevated.

As before, the judge is not impressed and throws out the entire case. He also gives a severe tongue lashing to the prosecution then orders the city & county to notify everyone in the area that was annexed of the change in status and how it will affect them. Later, the lawyer tells his client this got so out of hand because the event (shooting a crow) was witnessed by a cop which raises the "Quality" status to a nearly guaranteed conviction!

Our violated couple are out at least $6,000 and still haven't had their firearms returned (it has been a couple weeks now). However, both are getting frequently stopped for perceived traffic violations and detained an unusually long duration (20 - 30 minutes) each time. This is very unique because they run a business from their home and don't have any regular destinations, it is like every time they go to the gym or market they are followed by the police!

Their neighbors also notice an unusually high volume of traffic driving slowly past their home and have called the police about this. One neighbor took video because the same few cars kept driving by slowly at all hours after dark. The Sony night vision video camera clearly shows faces and license plate numbers. Only after the police got news of a video did they respond - to take the video! Fortunately, the good neighbor made a copy first and later showed it to our violated couple. At least one of the men in the video is a cop and the car he is driving is his personal car. WTF? They have gone back the the lawyer for further help with this harassment & stalking issue.

Just terribly inconvenient, eh? Yeah, they should be glad they aren't dead, right? </sarcasm>

The police and law enforcement are constantly put in a bad position. These are men and women who have valiantly and nobly put themselves between us the predators in society. They don't do it for the money. And as criminals become more sophisticated, more violent, and better armed, they also have to fight a public that is more jaded, more ungrateful, more hostile, and lawyered up.

Re-read your words. The police should not be in the position of "fighting the public." Nor should police ever attack citizens with machine guns and hand grenades (Waco). Did you ever think that the reason the public is jaded is because of the loss of freedom perpetrated by the police, who are the ENFORCEMENT ARM of the corrupt government officials? What should we be grateful for? Nanny state Feds and SWAT teams that "ensure our safety" while stripping (literally in this case) our liberties from us?

If bad guys have too much firepower, then the military should be used. Don't give me that crap about the military not being permitted. The National Guard was used extensively to keep the peace in New Orleans in 2005, and they have been used before to quell rebellions.

I disagree. There are way too many instances where police decide to use lethal force where it wasn't warranted. Literally thousands of cases where the police used lethal force in a situation that could have been resolved without the loss of life. But their 'training' doesn't allow for those instances where less-than-lethal would be appropriate. In most instances I consider it legalized murder on behalf of the police.

Case in point. I guy standing 5 feet away that supposedly "lunges" at a police officer who then shoots the guy 5 times point blank in the chest.

Please!:rolleyes:

One shot to the leg would have solved the situation. Unfortunate, but the police on too many occasions 'choose" to end a life instead of save one.

Thousands of other examples can be provided if necessary to prove my point.


I couldnt agree more.

US Capitol Police Officer Today:

http://www.talkingproud.us/ImagesLawEnforcement/QuietHeroes/CapitolPolice.jpg

Chicago Polics officer of the past:

http://www.eastlanddisaster.org/cpdpoliceman.jpg

I wonder how you feel about this story, Cal. It was, as you put it, "terribly inconvenient." But I guess it's best for cops to err on the side of THEIR OWN SAFETY ALWAYS, right? And the hell with the citizens they are supposed to protect?


A "Quality" Arrest & Prosecution.

Just terribly inconvenient, eh? Yeah, they should be glad they aren't dead, right? </sarcasm>[/quote]

First off, in a country of 300,000,000 million people, the fact that you can find isolated incidences of bad judgement by law enforcement doesn't surprise me.

Second, I'm highly suspicious of the details provided in any "first hand account" pulled off the internet. You routinely post stories like this that omit critical information from the reader. While this could be a completely transparent story, for some reason when I investigate these stories further, I learn that the family in question had a long history of problems with police. That they were under federal investigation for illegal arms sales, or drugs. There's always something else that the authors fail to note in these stories.

But, if everything is transparent in this story, something is clearly wrong in this county. Unfortunately all names have been omitted from the story. Even the name of the county is missing. But, if everything is true, these people, working within the system will undoubtedly be suing the county and there will be some consequence to those responsible for the poor decision making. No county, backwards and militaristic or not, likes cutting six figure checks.

By the way, what kind of arse-hole blindly shoots at crows outside their window? That alone seems odd to me. But,since your story, once again, is so critically lacking in pertinent details, so I'll assume that it's acceptable where ever that happens to be, I guess?


Re-read your words. The police should not be in the position of "fighting the public."
....clearly, I'd have been better phrased that as the police are fighting a criminal element within our society, who PREY on the public, that is increasing jaded....."

Nor should police ever attack citizens with machine guns and hand grenades (Waco). Did you ever think that the reason the public is jaded is because of the loss of freedom perpetrated by the police, who are the ENFORCEMENT ARM of the corrupt government officials?
No. And the police are not eroding our freedoms. They are, overwhelmingly, loyal, noble, and honorable men and women, who dedicate themselves to the community and protect those very freedoms you hold dear.

Do you personally know ANY police officers? Are they all lunatics in your opinion?

You're conspiratorial paranoia is getting really bizarre and alarming. We do not live in a police state. Police officers are the guys in blue who form a line and protect you from chaos. They are noble people serving in a thankless job.



What should we be grateful for? Nanny state Feds and SWAT teams that "ensure our safety" while stripping (literally in this case) our liberties from us?
We should be grateful that there are smart and honorable people who are willing to take a dangerous job with a starting salary of about $25k a year. We should be thankful that there are smart and noble people who are willing to commit themselves to protecting and serving the public, despite it sometimes being politically beneficial to offer them up as sacrificial lambs and scapegoats.



If bad guys have too much firepower, then the military should be used. Don't give me that crap about the military not being permitted. The National Guard was used extensively to keep the peace in New Orleans in 2005, and they have been used before to quell rebellions.[/QUOTE]

Wow! where do I begin...everyone seems to bring up good pionts on the pros and cons of this issue. your piont of view changes, when some thug has a gun in your face and his buddy is starting to rape your daughter....but then again your point of view changes, when a family member or friend accidently is shot or killed by one of those police raids.....As for me I can honestly can say I don't know...I guess it depends on which side of the news cast your on,The subject or the audience!"The first priority of a policeman is at the end of his shift to go home alive" (Sean connery-The untouchables) ..And as far as the national guard..I'd rather be protected by a Kmart security guard! It's about the same level of expertise! Right or wrong I'll still take the police!

You're conspiratorial paranoia is getting really bizarre and alarming. We do not live in a police state. Police officers are the guys in blue who form a line and protect you from chaos. They are noble people serving in a thankless job.



The coarseness of your rhetoric is getting out of character for you. I'm actually surprised. You sound defensive and you're calling names. I, on the other hand, am anything but bizarre. More people think like I do than you realize. Don't start casting aspersions on the gun culture when you know absolutely nothing about it.

If I were to respond in kind, I would say that you are living either in ignorance or denial. Just take a look at New York City these days. They are going to install 3,000 cameras on street corners. Helllooooo! Did you ever see the movie 1984?

Anybody who still thinks we live in a free country is a member of the sheeple. Have you ever read any of the books by John Ross, Matthew Bracken, Claire Wolfe, Vin Suprynowicz? If not, I suggest that you do. As a matter of fact, if you haven't read Unintended Consequences by John Ross (I KNOW you haven't), I'll offer you this challenge: Buy it and read it, and if it doesn't transform your thinking, I'll buy it from you for your entire cost. No risk to you. I'll even escrow the thirty bucks with MonsterMark if you want. Do we have a deal?

By the way, my wife's son is a federal agent, so yes I do know people in that line of work personally, and I know that they are not all corrupt; however, I believe that when push comes to shove, they will obey their superiors and protect their careers no matter what orders they are given. If the higher ups tell them to go around confiscating guns, LIKE THEY DID IN NEW ORLEANS, they will do it. If the higher ups tell them to arrest gun owners, they will do it. They will rationalize this in their own minds by thinking like you: "Hey, they will get their day in court, and they can always sue." Meanwhile, the victims who have done nothing wrong have had their lives turned upside down.

And I'm getting a little tired of your lame attempts to minimize the abuses by cops across this country. This kind of thing happens EVERY WEEK in this country. So stop acting like it's once a decade unless you have evidence to back up your statement. My contention is that it is a growing trend, despite the numbers of good law enforcement in this country. Regardless of your opinion, you have yet to acknowledge that they are our public servants, not the other way around.

Do you have a conceal carry permit? Do you know anybody who does? Do you know how out of control cops get when they realize somebody they've pulled over for speeding has a gun? Don't tell me they don't overreact.

Ever hear of gun rights activists being harassed by the police? Google "Shaun Kranish" and see what comes up (http://mydiscountstation.com/blog/?p=95).

Here's the money quote FROM THE POLICE CHIEF:

Cherry Valley Police Chief Gary Maitland disagrees with the judge’s ruling.

“This is not the Old West,” he said. “I’m not advocating banning handguns. But I’m not aware of any police officer who would advocate more handguns on the street. [There's that John Kerry "but" again. We all know what that means - whatever he said before the word is a LIE.] When they start taking their weapons out of their home and walking around with them strapped to their hip, bad things can happen.” [Well, certainly bad things can happen to THEM if the cops have anything to say about it, right?]

There you have it - it's institutional according to Maitland - cops don't want citizens armed on the streets. And he acknowledges that this is not the Old West. He prefers ONLY COPS to be armed on the streets. What is that, if not a police state?

You really believe that somebody who shoots a bird on his own property should be attacked and bound naked by a SWAT team? If that's your vision of America, then you really need to start re-reading the writings of Jefferson, Paine, and Hamilton.

The coarseness of your rhetoric is getting out of character for you. I'm actually surprised. You sound defensive and you're calling names. I, on the other hand, am anything but bizarre. More people think like I do than you realize. Don't start casting aspersions on the gun culture when you know absolutely nothing about it.
Don't make yourself a victim here and stop mischaracterizing everything I say as some kind of personal attack and thus avoiding the substance of everything else I've said.

The mere fact that there are "more people that think like you" than I may or may not realize is absolutely meaningless. There are more socialists and anarchists than I may realize, but that doesn't strengthen their argument.

Additionally, what aspersions am I casting on the "gun culture." I am a trained and licensed fire arm and handgun owner. I'm extremely familiar and active within the gun owning community. The only culture I may not be knowledgeable about would be the conspiratorial loony types that act outside of the legal system while developing ridiculous conspiratorial plots involving black helicopters and evil jack-booted police officers.


If I were to respond in kind, I would say that you are living either in ignorance or denial. Just take a look at New York City these days. They are going to install 3,000 cameras on street corners. Helllooooo! Did you ever see the movie 1984?
Many cities have installed cameras on their streets. It's been deemed to be constitutional because it's a public space. Whether you think that this is a good or bad thing is not related to whether or not you think that the police and law enforcement officers are dangerous thugs hell bent on denying civil rights to the gun owning meth addicts who's half-stories so often find their way to the internet.

Anybody who still thinks we live in a free country is a member of the sheeple.
Do we need to be constantly vigilant when protect our constitutionally protected rights? Absolutely. Does that having anything to do with your so-called "militarization" of the Police Department, when it's defined by good gear and tactical efficiency. No.

How are out rights better protected when the police resemble the Keystone Cops?

I'll offer you this challenge: Buy it and read it, and if it doesn't transform your thinking, I'll buy it from you for your entire cost. No risk to you. I'll even escrow the thirty bucks with MonsterMark if you want. Do we have a deal?
Not necessary. Given my understanding of that book, I expect myself to be in agreement with it. I've yet to read it, but do intend to.

By the way, my wife's son is a federal agent, so yes I do know people in that line of work personally, and I know that they are not all corrupt;
Then we are in agreement.
however, I believe that when push comes to shove, they will obey their superiors and protect their careers no matter what orders they are given.
And now we aren't. Federal law enforcement officers are not robots. They don't lose their humanity. Nor do soldiers or local cops. You take a job like that to PROTECT the constitution, not suppress it.

Again, there are always exceptions. Bad people sometimes slip through. But given how difficult the screening and application process is, this isn't common. And this whole sale indictment of nearly a million of some of the best Americans is offensive and ignorant. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a job with the FBI, Secret Service, or any other federal law enforcement position? Or the nearly six months of intense training they also often require?

If the higher ups tell them to go around confiscating guns, LIKE THEY DID IN NEW ORLEANS, they will do it. If the higher ups tell them to arrest gun owners, they will do it. They will rationalize this in their own minds by thinking like you: "Hey, they will get their day in court, and they can always sue." Meanwhile, the victims who have done nothing wrong have had their lives turned upside down.


Again, how does this have anything to do with local law enforcement using flash bangs before entering a gang leaders home?

But what is your suggestion? Eliminating all law enforcement officers because they might function to enforce bad laws? Are you saying they should be so poorly armed and equipped that they will be easy to shoot if they attempt to enforce a bad law?

Don't you think it'd be better ot work within the system to ELIMINATE those bad laws, not leave law enforcement so poorly prepared they are basically offered for sacrifice to actual criminals?

And I'm getting a little tired of your lame attempts to minimize the abuses by cops across this country. This kind of thing happens EVERY WEEK in this country.
Over eight hundred Thousand law enforcement officers.

Again, you're solution is what? Disarm law enforcement? I'm not building a straw man here, what's your point? Give them night sticks alone? You can kill a man with a night stick, so how about whiffle ball bats? What's your goal? Not only do you mistrust the government, the politicians, you're venting on the regular normal guy who choses a thankless, dangerous career, with the intention of just helping people.


So stop acting like it's once a decade unless you have evidence to back up your statement. My contention is that it is a growing trend, despite the numbers of good law enforcement in this country.
..do you have any evidence to back up that the law enforcement abuses are actually proportionately increasing? Noting that the population has grown, as have the numbers of law enforcement, are the stats really getting worse? I'd actually expect to see some increase given the increased likelihood of the public to report them and the litigious society we live in. But is that even the case?


Regardless of your opinion, you have yet to acknowledge that they are our public servants, not the other way around.
What do you mean by public servants? I've stated that these are men and women who serve the community, that they dedicate themselves to a thankless job with the intention of helping out other people, people they probably don't even know. You seem to think that public servant means that they should be our whipping boys and victims. That they should be cannon fodder for scum bag criminals. And that they should be viewed suspiciously and as though they are our enemy.

To the contrary, I think of law enforcement as an ally. To someone who is trying to improve the quality of the neighborhood. Someone I work with, not against.

Do you have a conceal carry permit? Do you know anybody who does? Do you know how out of control cops get when they realize somebody they've pulled over for speeding has a gun? Don't tell me they don't overreact.
Yes and I've never had a problem.
But, have you ever been in a line of work where it's very possible someone will shoot you in the chest because they've been pulled over for speeding and they have a pending arrest warrant.

Ever hear of gun rights activists being harassed by the police? Google "Shaun Kranish" and see
Political activists, among them Shaun Kranish, use civil disobedience to generate attention to the issue. He accomplished that.

If anyone is reading this thread, Kranish was ultimately arrested for carrying a holstered, unarmed, weapon in a mall. He argued that the holster constituted a recognized carry case. I believe he just won the case a few days ago. It will be interesting to see what kind of precedent that this ruling has.

There you have it - it's institutional according to Maitland - cops don't want citizens armed on the streets. And he acknowledges that this is not the Old West. He prefers ONLY COPS to be armed on the streets. What is that, if not a police state?
You have the public statement of one man. The police chief is a political position. So you have now quotes the public statement from a politician. Every police officer I know encourages responsible adults to own and train with fire arms. All of them. But I'm not friends with that Police Chief.

You really believe that somebody who shoots a bird on his own property should be attacked and bound naked by a SWAT team?
Of course not. However, I do get the distinct impression that story is either bullcrap or missing some crucial information. Regardless, if reality is as the story was presented, that was a horrible abuse of power,reckless abandoning of better judgment, and horrible allocation of resources.

But, if posted a true story about the heroic deeds of a police officer, would that counter your single negative story? What if I matched every negative story you can find with three stories of bravery and nobility? What if I matched it with five? or ten? Would that prove something to you?

What about the sixty police officers who died at the World Trade Center attempting to save people on 9/11? Or the police officers who routines dive into icy water to save children. Who form human chains to pull people out of rushing waters. The ones who throw themselves in harms way to protect innocents from enraged gunmen?

You keep reminding us of the exceptions and you wholesale dismiss the quality and character of the vast majority of those people who dedicate their lives to public service. You denigrate them, you equate them to mind number, brainwashed, robots who simply lust for power.

This is not the case.

I couldnt agree more.


Comparing a 100 year old picture of a Chicago police officer to a photo of a U.S. Capitol Police is totally ridiculous and meaningless.

Earlier in this thread, I made a reference to the police officers being completely out armed by the bad guys at the turn of the century. Those same police officers in 1915 were completely ineffective when it came to preventing bank robberies and other violent crimes. Bad guys, like Bonnie and Clyde for example, simply purchased BAR automatic rifles.

http://texashideout.tripod.com/clydenbar.jpg

Were we safer because the police were more poorly armed and defenseless against the criminals? Was it wrong to equip police departments with BAR rifles? Does giving the police radios result in them being a repressive force?

If dealing with a BAD cop of some kind, are you any less dead when beaten to death with a stick, shot by a .38 snub nose, or it's an MP5 round that finishes you off?

As I've stated repeatedly, the author misses the point by making the way the police look the issue of his article and not the policies they are mandated to enforce. Further, he is incorrect for saying that we should disarm law enforcement in order to make us safer. Personally, my hunch is that the author would really like to see ALL weapons banned, in both the hands of civilians and law enforcement.

Don't make yourself a victim here and stop mischaracterizing everything I say as some kind of personal attack and thus avoiding the substance of everything else I've said.

So you're denying that you called me bizarre and a conspiracy theorist?

The mere fact that there are "more people that think like you" than I may or may not realize is absolutely meaningless. There are more socialists and anarchists than I may realize, but that doesn't strengthen their argument.

And now you are implying that I'm a socialist and an anarchist? Just throw everything you can think of against the wall, eh?

Additionally, what aspersions am I casting on the "gun culture." I am a trained and licensed fire arm and handgun owner. I'm extremely familiar and active within the gun owning community. The only culture I may not be knowledgeable about would be the conspiratorial loony types that act outside of the legal system while developing ridiculous conspiratorial plots involving black helicopters and evil jack-booted police officers.

Again with your coarse rhetoric. Who are you calling loony? Examples, please.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were NOT figments of anybody's imagination.


Many cities have installed cameras on their streets. It's been deemed to be constitutional because it's a public space. Whether you think that this is a good or bad thing is not related to whether or not you think that the police and law enforcement officers are dangerous thugs hell bent on denying civil rights to the gun owning meth addicts who's half-stories so often find their way to the internet.

It is NOT irrelevant; it is DIRECTLY related to the term "police state." You saying so doesn't make it irrelevant. What authority are you using to make this claim?

Do we need to be constantly vigilant when protect our constitutionally protected rights? Absolutely. Does that having anything to do with your so-called "militarization" of the Police Department, when it's defined by good gear and tactical efficiency. No.

Good gear and tactical efficiency? That's what you call it?

How are out rights better protected when the police resemble the Keystone Cops?

There's your false straw man again. Either they have to be the Gestapo or the Keystone cops. No middle ground here with you. Interesting. The truth is that there should be jurisdictional limits on what law enforcement can and can't do, and that should include what kinds of crime they should target. Local police forces should NOT be MILITARY. That's what the MILITARY is for. If there is a crime problem that is out of their league, that is what the FBI or the MILITARY is for. Call them in. But don't cross the line from "protect and serve" to "dominate and destroy." You really, truly don't see the link between militarization of your "friendly, neighborhood beat cop" and the growing distrust and outright fear of them by the public?

Not necessary. Given my understanding of that book, I expect myself to be in agreement with it. I've yet to read it, but do intend to.

It's like taking the red pill.

And now we aren't. Federal law enforcement officers are not robots. They don't lose their humanity. Nor do soldiers or local cops. You take a job like that to PROTECT the constitution, not suppress it.

Oh! Which parts of the Constitution? Only the parts not in the Bill of Rights? Because I could have sworn that the 4th Amendment along with the 2nd is being swept away in this country every time a SWAT team busts into some poor schmuck's house with a pre-signed warrant.

Again, there are always exceptions. Bad people sometimes slip through. But given how difficult the screening and application process is, this isn't common. And this whole sale indictment of nearly a million of some of the best Americans is offensive and ignorant. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a job with the FBI, Secret Service, or any other federal law enforcement position? Or the nearly six months of intense training they also often require?
Show me where I indicted nearly a million people by talking about militarization. Talk about being misquoted.

Yes I do. I applied for the FBI several years ago and missed the cut because of color blindness. And I'm ex-military. By the way, what does the FBI and Secret Service and Fed law enforcement have to do with local police forces? You're straying away and using straw men again.


Again, how does this have anything to do with local law enforcement using flash bangs before entering a gang leaders home?

Gang leader? Oh, we're back to that straw man again? So you can guarantee me that SWAT never busts in on anybody but gang leaders? I've watched Dallas SWAT for crying out loud, they use the whole squad for routine drug busts where the guy had an ounce of coke or an illegal wheelgun. But what about the story I posted? You really believe that was a good use of tax dollars, mounting a SWAT operation for a guy in the shower and his wife in bed?

But what is your suggestion? Eliminating all law enforcement officers because they might function to enforce bad laws? Are you saying they should be so poorly armed and equipped that they will be easy to shoot if they attempt to enforce a bad law?

I hadn't made a suggestion, so where are you coming up with this stuff? Again, a ridiculous straw man, asserting that I'm advocating the abolishment of police forces. I've never said anything of the kind. This thread is about the MILITARIZATION of police. Please stay on topic.

Look, if what you're saying is that by not giving them APCs and fixed wing capability makes their jobs harder, then IT'S HARDER. But the problem we face today is that when the cops make mistakes with these expensive toys, it severely runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (and indubitably several others, such as the 14th). I'd rather their job be harder than my rights be violated. And if their job gets too risky, THAT'S WHAT THE MILITARY IS FOR.

Don't you think it'd be better ot work within the system to ELIMINATE those bad laws, not leave law enforcement so poorly prepared they are basically offered for sacrifice to actual criminals?

You're forcing me to choose between having an acceptable amount of civil rights violations versus a mass wipeout of police? Is crime really that bad?

Again, you offer up the straw man stating that without machine guns, APCs, and fixed wing, police will be slaughtered in droves. It's actually getting absurd. You're also repeating yourself.


Over eight hundred Thousand law enforcement officers.

Again, you're solution is what? Disarm law enforcement? I'm not building a straw man here, what's your point? Give them night sticks alone? You can kill a man with a night stick, so how about whiffle ball bats? What's your goal? Not only do you mistrust the government, the politicians, you're venting on the regular normal guy who choses a thankless, dangerous career, with the intention of just helping people.

What a fascinating statement. In the same breath that you deny constructing a straw man, you whip up three quick ones. You give me no room to answer the question. You're just firing rhetoric at me as though you really don't care what the answer is.

It's hard to answer your question when it's laced with SO MUCH ad hominem and invective. But I'll humor you, no doubt to be attacked again.

Simple. Give the cops guns and limit their jurisdiction to traffic violations and misdemeanors and felonies. Big targets must be targeted by the military. In fact, it would be even better to avoid calling in the guard. Just set up on-call militia groups - background checks and all is fine with me - to step up if necessary.


..do you have any evidence to back up that the law enforcement abuses are actually proportionately increasing? Noting that the population has grown, as have the numbers of law enforcement, are the stats really getting worse? I'd actually expect to see some increase given the increased likelihood of the public to report them and the litigious society we live in. But is that even the case?

Yes it is. 50 years ago police did not have APCs, fixed wing, and flash-bangs. 50 years ago this kind of thing didn't happen. But what difference does it make? So you're okay with violations of rights as long as it's proportionate? Ever heard the phrase, give em an inch and they take a mile?

You've been one of the strongest advocates of limiting the scope of government, but with military police you're okay with them being so powerful they can literally quash the public? Do you not even realize that if they wanted to institute a fully functional police state right now, there is little that would stop them at this point? It's happening in smaller increments, but it's happening.

What do you mean by public servants? I've stated that these are men and women who serve the community, that they dedicate themselves to a thankless job with the intention of helping out other people, people they probably don't even know. You seem to think that public servant means that they should be our whipping boys and victims. That they should be cannon fodder for scum bag criminals. And that they should be viewed suspiciously and as though they are our enemy.

Show me where I said that. And don't tell me what I think. You're grossly distorting what I'm saying into a phony template designed to discredit me. Your attack is baseless and without any facts to back it up, and you are using logically flawed euphemisms such as "whipping boys, cannon fodder, enemy, thankless, and sacrifice." Your argument is completely irrational.

Again, (sigh) I'm saying that they are GOING TOO FAR. I don't wish to disband police forces. Somebody's got to do the job. I'm saying that they are so powerful that they are getting fearsome to ORDINARY CITIZENS. I've already said this to you three times in this very post. I wonder if you'll ignore my statement yet again.

To the contrary, I think of law enforcement as an ally. To someone who is trying to improve the quality of the neighborhood. Someone I work with, not against.

Not arguing with that statement, despite your pejorative personal attacks to the contrary. Except for the military aspect!

Yes and I've never had a problem.
But, have you ever been in a line of work where it's very possible someone will shoot you in the chest because they've been pulled over for speeding and they have a pending arrest warrant.

Isn't that why they wear body armor, approach the car from the back and stop short of the car door, and ask people to put their hands where they can see them? LIKE YOU SAID, these aren't the Keystone Cops. They are competent. And AGAIN, do they really need APCs, machine guns, and fixed wing to apprehend speeders? You're mixing your metaphors YET AGAIN.

You have the public statement of one man.

Okay, if I can drum up a few dozen other statements by these political/law enforcement figures, will that prove to you that the problem is institutional? How many would it take?


The police chief is a political position. So you have now quotes the public statement from a politician. Every police officer I know encourages responsible adults to own and train with fire arms. All of them. But I'm not friends with that Police Chief.

Exactly. This is bordering on another subject, but should police be political figures? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Politicians make laws, police enforce them. What happens when the same guy does both? Do you not see the potential for corruption there?

By the way, I note that you omitted whether or not police officers encourage "responsible adults" (that's a talking point phrase) to CARRY firearms.

Of course not. However, I do get the distinct impression that story is either bullcrap or missing some crucial information. Regardless, if reality is as the story was presented, that was a horrible abuse of power,reckless abandoning of better judgment, and horrible allocation of resources.

Trying to mitigate my point by revising my story? It's false because you say it's false? You're using circular reasoning.

But, if posted a true story about the heroic deeds of a police officer, would that counter your single negative story? What if I matched every negative story you can find with three stories of bravery and nobility? What if I matched it with five? or ten? Would that prove something to you?

Aren't you generalizing here? How does a heroic officer prove that police should be SWATted up? This is again irrelevant to the topic.

What about the sixty police officers who died at the World Trade Center attempting to save people on 9/11? Or the police officers who routines dive into icy water to save children. Who form human chains to pull people out of rushing waters. The ones who throw themselves in harms way to protect innocents from enraged gunmen?

Irrelevant to the topic. Had nothing to do with militarization. Attempting to prove that police should be SWATted up because many of them did good things is a non sequitur.

You keep reminding us of the exceptions and you wholesale dismiss the quality and character of the vast majority of those people who dedicate their lives to public service. You denigrate them, you equate them to mind number, brainwashed, robots who simply lust for power.

This is not the case.
I've done nothing of the sort. You are putting words in my mouth in a defensive, lashing out, very liberal manner. It's actually irresponsible what you're saying, because you have zero evidence that I'm doing this.

Again, (hopefully for the last time) if the police were not so militarized, there would be less opportunity for abuses and more cause for investigation before the fact.

Comparing a 100 year old picture of a Chicago police officer to a photo of a U.S. Capitol Police is totally ridiculous and meaningless.

Earlier in this thread, I made a reference to the police officers being completely out armed by the bad guys at the turn of the century. Those same police officers in 1915 were completely ineffective when it came to preventing bank robberies and other violent crimes. Bad guys, like Bonnie and Clyde for example, simply purchased BAR automatic rifles.

http://texashideout.tripod.com/clydenbar.jpg

Were we safer because the police were more poorly armed and defenseless against the criminals? Was it wrong to equip police departments with BAR rifles? Does giving the police radios result in them being a repressive force?

If dealing with a BAD cop of some kind, are you any less dead when beaten to death with a stick, shot by a .38 snub nose, or it's an MP5 round that finishes you off?

As I've stated repeatedly, the author misses the point by making the way the police look the issue of his article and not the policies they are mandated to enforce. Further, he is incorrect for saying that we should disarm law enforcement in order to make us safer. Personally, my hunch is that the author would really like to see ALL weapons banned, in both the hands of civilians and law enforcement.

You know, I really can't let you get away with this. Nowhere in this thread has ANYBODY advocated disarming law enforcement. You really are making false statements. It's a straw man at best, a lie at worst.

If you can't debate the issue in good faith, maybe you should pick your battles more carefully.

So you're denying that you called me bizarre and a conspiracy theorist?
Well, first, are you denying that you're claims are both bizarre and consistent with those of a conspiracy theorist? I did comment on you bizarre conspiratorial premises though. The notion that we are living in a police state and that law enforcement officers are brainwashed thugs hell bent on killing our kittens, hand cuffing naked white trash women in the shower, and putting responsible gun owning citizens in jail is a bit bizarre and conspiratorial though.

And now you are implying that I'm a socialist and an anarchist? Just throw everything you can think of against the wall, eh?
I implied no such thing. I simply stated two other "popular" believes that are also wrong to emphasize my point and demonstrate the absurdity of yours.


Again with your coarse rhetoric. Who are you calling loony? Examples, please.
I can't, because those are the people and the cultures I'm NOT familiar with. Stop looking for reasons to be offended. I'm not debating who YOU are but, initially the article you posted. Yet you see determined to make this about YOU. It's not.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were NOT figments of anybody's imagination.
No they were not. They were horribly managed tragedies. But the situation wasn't because the government and the officers involved were TOO well trained, TOO well equipped, or TOO well managed. Better trained, better equipped, with better direction (someone other than a corrupt Souther Florida Attorney names Janet Reno) would have SAVED lives. Incompetence, inadequate discipline, and bad policy contributed to the loss of life that day.

But for the record, four ATF agents died at WACO too.


It is NOT irrelevant; it is DIRECTLY related to the term "police state." You saying so doesn't make it irrelevant. What authority are you using to make this claim?
...I'm not debating the placement of cameras within cities. I have not stated any opinion on the manner, for or against them. And to go back to an earlier point, 7 out of 10 people seem to support them. Since you wanted to make an issue of how it was significant that more people than might be imagined agreed with you on this subject, I guess you'll consider the 71% of the public supporting the cameras as significant?

There are enough topics at play here right now that we don't have time, space, or the attention to include this sub-topic as well. And they have nothing to do with the police tactics and gear initially brought up in the first post.

Good gear and tactical efficiency? That's what you call it?
And I would continue to be correct by calling it that. Have you read the original article in a while?


There's your false straw man again. Either they have to be the Gestapo or the Keystone cops. No middle ground here with you.
How many pages do you need to define this "middle ground."

Interesting. The truth is that there should be jurisdictional limits on what law enforcement can and can't do, and that should include what kinds of crime they should target.
And there are. There are distinctions, there are FEDERAL CRIMES enforced by FEDERAL law enforcement.

Local police forces should NOT be MILITARY. That's what the MILITARY is for.
No, it is not the role of the military to enforce the law. It's also not what they are trained for. The military is trained to kill people. Police do everything in their power to bring people back alive and unharmed to stand trial.

If there is a crime problem that is out of their league, that is what the FBI or the MILITARY is for. Call them in. But don't cross the line from "protect and serve" to "dominate and destroy."
You're worried about militarization and a police state, yet you want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to handle police functions on a local level? More surprisingly, you want the MILITARY running around the streets enforcing street level laws??

How is that good?? That's the very definition of a police state.

You really, truly don't see the link between militarization of your "friendly, neighborhood beat cop" and the growing distrust and outright fear of them by the public?
And you don't see how idiotic your last statement was??

Putting your empty rhetoric aside, again, let me mention the example of Bonnie and Clyde. They had a huge fire power advantage over the police because Clyde took advantage of the weapons technology of the time and armed his gang with BAR rifles.

As you know, the Browning Automatic Rifle was a .30 caliper automatic rifle that had previously been used exclusively by the military.

Should local law enforcement called the U.S. Army to come capture this Gang? Was it overtly militaristic, marching us to a police state, when the police departments armed themselves with the BAR rifle and Thompson Submachine guns as well?

As cute as that picture Joey posted of the 1915 Chicago cop, it fails to depict the reality of the time. This is the same era where Bonnie and Clyde that died in their car when six officers ambushed them and opened fire on their car. These six guys had finally been given BAR rifles as well.


It's like taking the red pill.
:rolleyes:


Oh! Which parts of the Constitution? Only the parts not in the Bill of Rights? Because I could have sworn that the 4th Amendment along with the 2nd is being swept away in this country every time a SWAT team busts into some poor schmuck's house with a pre-signed warrant.
Again, your issue is with the police makers, not the officers enforcing said policy. But you've yet to explain how limiting them to a billy club and a .38, and denying them a bullet proof vest, benefits society.

Should we call in the army every time a drug dealer is in his home and it's suspected that he's well armed?


Show me where I indicted nearly a million people by talking about militarization. Talk about being misquoted.
No misquote. There are over 800,000 law enforcement officers in the country.

Yes I do. I applied for the FBI several years ago and missed the cut because of color blindness.
Are you, or were you, one of these mindless sheeple that want to be thoughtless pawns of the government, crushing the civil rights of the individual in order to expand the power of the state?

Or were you a good citizen who though you could help strengthen the country, preserve our freedoms, and improve the quality of life for people you don't even know.

I'm going to guess the later. So why do you project the exact opposite.

And I'm ex-military. By the way, what does the FBI and Secret Service and Fed law enforcement have to do with local police forces? You're straying away and using straw men again.
You expanded the discussion to include federal law enforcement repeatedly throughout the thread. Despite all of my repeated attempts to focus the discussion on the original post, you have gone off in all kinds of tangents expanding things.

How many times have you mentioned things like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Ken Ballew for starters. These are all examples used to demonstrate abuses of power at the FEDERAL level, not the local. All the straying is coming from you.

My agenda has been plainly stated from the start. I want my local police officers well armed, equiped, and trained. And law enforcement officers are almost all good, noble, and honorably people who dedicate themselves to the public good. And they are not knowingly or blindly marching towards a police state.


Gang leader? Oh, we're back to that straw man again? So you can guarantee me that SWAT never busts in on anybody but gang leaders? I've watched Dallas SWAT for crying out loud, they use the whole squad for routine drug busts where the guy had an ounce of coke or an illegal wheelgun.
I haven't watched the show, I can't comment on anything you've seen on it.

But if they are sending a swat team to arrest a guy with ounce of coke sleeping at home, then clearly resources are being wasted. But how did they know he'd have "1 oz. of coke."

However, you're statement right now sounds like the strawman.

But in a situation where we're dealing with any other kind of felon, let's say he's a violent felon or a bank robber, would you rather guys in blue uniforms pull up in black and whites with the sirens on, knocking on the door armed with six shot revolvers?

Do you recognize that a powerful blitz SAVES lives. If you can control a situation before the suspect has time to recognize what's going on, you can bring them in without firing ANY shots.

But what about the story I posted? You really believe that was a good use of tax dollars, mounting a SWAT operation for a guy in the shower and his wife in bed?
You mean that story about the FEDERAL ATF abuse of power?

Well, they didn't arrest the guy because he was in the shower. Ballew is a tragic example. An example of inadequate resources, oversight, and training. Not of militaristic tactics, but of incompetence and a lack of professionalism.



I hadn't made a suggestion, so where are you coming up with this stuff? Again, a ridiculous straw man, asserting that I'm advocating the abolishment of police forces. I've never said anything of the kind. This thread is about the MILITARIZATION of police. Please stay on topic.
I'm well aware of the fact you've yet to make any suggestions. You're just ranting and rambling.

But clear up the confusion, state what your in support of. For the record, you're claim that the military should move in to function as a law enforcement agency is ridiculous, so perhaps we should pretend you never made that foolish statement.


Look, if what you're saying is that by not giving them APCs and fixed wing capability makes their jobs harder, then IT'S HARDER. But the problem we face today is that when the cops make mistakes with these expensive toys, it severely runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (and indubitably several others, such as the 14th). I'd rather their job be harder than my rights be violated. And if their job gets too risky, THAT'S WHAT THE MILITARY IS FOR.
You keep going back to this military angle, and it's just absurd. The military isn't there to enforce local or federal laws. And if you're fearing a police state or the true militarization of law enforcement, having the Army and Marine corps serving arrest warrants is outrageous.

I'm not familiar with the APC term, but I fail to see how having fixed wing air craft violates anything? And are helicopters o.k.?

Here's a strawman for you- are patrol cars o.k? When the state troopers have Mercury Marauders around here, is that going to far? Do they need 300hp sedans? Should they simply use horses? What's your point?

Do you think it's right for the rest of the world to see their gear advance as technology improves, but law enforcement should live in a static bubble? Was it wrong for the police to equip BAR rifles and Thompson submachine guns when they were being gunned down by criminals and mobsters?

Should we have used the military to prosecute the gangs in Chicago, or to chase the bank robbers of the midwest?


You're forcing me to choose between having an acceptable amount of civil rights violations versus a mass wipeout of police? Is crime really that bad?

Again, you offer up the straw man stating that without machine guns, APCs, and fixed wing, police will be slaughtered in droves. It's actually getting absurd. You're also repeating yourself.

The nature of your posts force me to repeat myself.

So are you ready to provide me an acceptable number of state and local law enforcement deaths annually? Last year, 146 were killed. This year, we saw over 100 killed within the first six months. That's with there fancy "militaristic" gear.

So, what's the thresh hold? 300? 500?

Do you remember the bank robbery in North Hollywood in 1997? I'll bring it up at the end of the post as to not repeat myself.


What a fascinating statement. In the same breath that you deny constructing a straw man, you whip up three quick ones. You give me no room to answer the question. You're just firing rhetoric at me as though you really don't care what the answer is.
Oh no, I was waiting for the answer, but using the absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of your position.

It's hard to answer your question when it's laced with SO MUCH ad hominem and invective.
No, I suspect it's difficult to answer because you either:
Don't have an answer or you recognize how foolish your answer really is.

But I'll humor you, no doubt to be attacked again.

Simple. Give the cops guns and limit their jurisdiction to traffic violations and misdemeanors and felonies. Big targets must be targeted by the military. In fact, it would be even better to avoid calling in the guard. Just set up on-call militia groups - background checks and all is fine with me - to step up if necessary.
..... o.k.
The police do arrest misdemeanors and felonies though.
And I fail to see how someone fearing a police state wants the MILITARY, the most powerful force in the world functioning under the direction of the executive branch and the commander in chief, on the streets, enforcing the law, and when necessary, employing lethal force against it's own citizens.

Have you really thought this one out yet?

Yes it is. 50 years ago police did not have APCs, fixed wing, and flash-bangs. 50 years ago this kind of thing didn't happen. But what difference does it make? So you're okay with violations of rights as long as it's proportionate? Ever heard the phrase, give em an inch and they take a mile?
You didn't answer the question, but that's o.k. I wasn't able to find any data on that either.

And no, I not in support of violation of rights. But I don't think the employ of flash bangs or airplanes constitutes such a thing. Again, I maintain, that effective use of technology (often developed for the military) SAVES lives.


You've been one of the strongest advocates of limiting the scope of government, but with military police you're okay with them being so powerful they can literally quash the public? Do you not even realize that if they wanted to institute a fully functional police state right now, there is little that would stop them at this point? It's happening in smaller increments, but it's happening.
And do you think the odds are better if we have the MILITARY enforcing the law?

And had you made it through the FBI hiring pipeline, would you be ready to quash the civil rights of public and support a fully functioning police state? No. You'd refuse, just like the vast majority of the other 1811 guys through out the country. As would the local police officers.


Show me where I said that. And don't tell me what I think. You're grossly distorting what I'm saying into a phony template designed to discredit me. Your attack is baseless and without any facts to back it up, and you are using logically flawed euphemisms such as "whipping boys, cannon fodder, enemy, thankless, and sacrifice." Your argument is completely irrational.

No, my argument is sound. Your argument calling in the federal government to enforce the law is irrational.

And my terms are correct. If you wish to disarm and unequip law enforcement, if you start talking in terms of acceptable losses, then you are essentially making them cannon fodder. A human shield, unable to defend themself, for society. Whipping boys- yes, they accept all the risk and in return, you liken them to jack booted thugs. That all sounds pretty thankless to me. And anyone who knows anything about law enforcement knows that a career in that line of work does require personal sacrifice, but you do it because you feel you're serving the greater good, improving society.


Again, (sigh) I'm saying that they are GOING TOO FAR. I don't wish to disband police forces. Somebody's got to do the job. I'm saying that they are so powerful that they are getting fearsome to ORDINARY CITIZENS.
Where is this fear? Why don't I share it? Why don't the people I know share it? What circles are you running with where this wide spread paranoia exists? I don't fear law enforcement. I view them as an ally. They are my neighbors. They are my friends. They are just like you and I.

And while they perform their duties, I want them to be as safe, as well equipped, and as well trained as possible.

Because the better these guys are trained and equipped, the better EVERYONE is. Well trained, well equipped police save lives. Busting into a house with a flash bang SAVES lives. If a suspect is apprehended so quickly, he doesn't even have time to grab his pants, let alone chamber a round, NO ONE gets hurt, everyone goes home that night.

What makes you think that the military, an institution trained to KILL, would be better or less prone to making mistakes than the local cops who know the area, know the suspects, and live in the community? And how big would the Army, stationed domestically in EVERYTOWN, have to be in order to fufill your outrageous premise?



I've already said this to you three times in this very post. I wonder if you'll ignore my statement yet again.
I've addressed every comment, every point, up until this point in the thread. You don't add anything new, so given the hour, I'm not going to bother taking it line by line.

Unfortunately, you've address virtually none of my points through out this thread. And when you get caught in a logic trap, you find some silly excuse for not engaging in it.

I suggest you re-read this thread from the beginning before posting again.



Earlier I mentioned the North Hollywood Shoot-out that took place in February of 1997. In case you don't remember, two men covered themselves completely in bullet proof armor with additional trauma plates to protect their vitals. They imported armor piercing bullets. They armed themselves with loaded three pistols, three fully automatic assault rifles, an HK91 rifle, an AR-15 rifle with 100-round Beta C-Mag magazine, and around 3,300 rounds of ammunition.

If you saw the Pacino/Deniro movie HEAT, you saw a situation that was inspired by this real life event.

These two armors and heavily armed guys robbed a Bank of America. The police arrived faster than these two anticipated. But unfortunately, the police officers fire power was limited to only their .38 service revolvers, some had 9mm Berettas, and a few had shot guns. None of these side arms had enough power to pierce the bank robbers armor though.

Within the first five minutes, 3 civilians and nine officers were shot by these two gunmen.

Eventually the SWAT team arrived, armed with automatic weapons. They commandeered an armored truck to rescue and recover the wounded throughout the area. Police officers went to a LOCAL GUN SHOP and borrowed automatic rifles from the store.

By the time the shooting was over, the bad guys were dead, but had fired over 1100 rounds.

Here's a video on the subject.
http://www.jokeroo.com/extremevideos/hollywoodshootout.html

How were we safer by having these police officers grossly unprepared and under equipped? How would the situation have improved were SWAT unable to arrive on the scene with their training and weaponry? Would things have been better if the police were forced to their police issue .38 and NOT gone to the gun store and borrowed the rifles, the same rifles available to the public?

You know, I really can't let you get away with this. Nowhere in this thread has ANYBODY advocated disarming law enforcement. You really are making false statements. It's a straw man at best, a lie at worst.

If you can't debate the issue in good faith, maybe you should pick your battles more carefully.

The BAR was a military rifle. If you are unable to debate the issue, perhaps you should tuck your tail between your legs and find a different topic to invest your time on, rather than continuing to make excuses why you don't need to address challenges.

Read the article you posted. Re-read what you have said. You specifically take issue both with the tactics employed by the law enforcement as well as the equipment they are now issued.

The BAR was a military rifle that was later utilized by criminals. This gave them a profound firepower advantage against law enforcement. Was it considered militarizing the police department when they were issued BAR rifles and Thompson submachine guns?

How is that any different than using flash bangs and M-16s now when the bad guys can easily arm themselves with bullet proof jackets, armor piercing bullets, and automatic rifles?

Here, let me quote YOU:
Just keep in mind that police forces both local and federal are given far more firepower than the citizens whose rights they are supposed to be upholding. All it takes is a corrupt cop or department and you have a police state. Also remember that we the citizens of this country are not allowed to use most of the equipment that our "public servants" get to play with.

Or how about the opening lines of the testimony you posted:
I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

To say I'm not debating in good faith is absolute rubbish. I'm the only one doing so, addressing every argument while still remember what the original post involved.

And the fact that when backed into a corner, you answer that the solution to what you and Balko perceive as an increasingly militarized police force is to simply have the military serve in that capacity is remarkable.

You've been back pedaling throughout this entire thread.


Additional point- if you want to fear government power, you fear the strength of the military coming down on the populace. You fear military force being used to limit dissent. The local level is the community level. Those are our neighbors, the men and women who coach little league, attend meetings with you, go to church with you, and function in your community. Local law enforcement isn't the repressive force that will take away our liberties. This entire thing thread is ridiculous.

First of all, you're arguing by questioning - and your questions are largely rhetorical, therefore not grounded in good faith. You don't really expect answers to your multi-dozen questions, do you?

Second of all, you have not stopped the personal attacks.

Third, you have continued to misrepresent my words, even attempting to quote me and then draw elixir from my quotes that is in no way present.

Fourth, your arguments are absurd because you advocate the militarization of police while arguing vehemently against using the military. That is semantics, pure and simple. You would blur the line between the two rather than expand the usage of the latter. That is ridiculous.

Fifth, you harp on the isolated nature of police abuses, and then you use an isolated situation like Bonnie and Clyde or the North Hollywood shooting to back up your claims that we need to give the police overkill. That is a good example of the exception proving the rule.

Sixth, you have continued attribute to me euphemisms such as "disarm" and "unequip", when I've stated that my position does not in any way resemble such silly language.

Finally, you continue to ignore my statements, favoring your incorrect and pejorative mischaracterizations instead. That is not debating in good faith. As long as you continue to misquote, misrepresent, argue by rhetorical question, attack by ad hominem, and fail to state your position, I have no desire to continue this conversation with you. You have proven nothing, zippo, nada, zilch; you have not convinced a single soul on this forum that you are right about this, and it is largely due to your tactics.

I'm sure you will want to get the last word here, but I don't know what you think you will accomplish, as I will not be responding. So for all the times that you urged me to avoid blasting people and instead try to get them to agree by using reasonable tactics, you will have failed and ruined your own reputation.

First of all, you're arguing by questioning - and your questions are largely rhetorical, therefore not grounded in good faith. You don't really expect answers to your multi-dozen questions, do you?
Oh another excuse not to engage.....

Second of all, you have not stopped the personal attacks.
Another excuse. What a shock. But it's obvious I have not resorted to any "personal attacks" in this thread. And even if you're acutely sensitive, anything that you perceive as such hardly is the focus of what I've written or distracts from the broader point.


I disagree with the opening post. The author takes issue with the "militarization" of the police, and he defines it as the use of military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

But, unlike the author, who does recognize that SWAT teams, though being over utilized right now, serve an important role, you seem to think these activities should be handled by the ARMY!?

You state police forces should be no better armed than the average citizen, oblivious to the nature of crime and the fact that many criminals aren't stupid and understand how to arm themselves, and how it provides them an advantage to be better armed than the police. Logic would dictate that since the average civilian isn't going to increase their armories the police should disarm.

And since the definition of militarization as offered in the first post takes issue with the appearance and equipment of the police, how is that remedied? By eliminating those "militaristic" looking pieces of equipment?

This equates to disarming the local police.


Third, you have continued to misrepresent my words, even attempting to quote me and then draw elixir from my quotes that is in no way present.
So I'm misrepresenting your words, by using your words. Very clever. Perhaps I should use MY words to represent your words? No, you took issue with that too. So tell me, if I don't respond according to how I interpret your words, and I shouldn't quote your words, what are you trying to say. Have you had an insufficient amount of time space in this thread to express your points?

Have you considered using animation? Interpretive dance, perhaps. I'm sure we can find a way for you to express yourself in a way in a way that doesn't betray your thoughts?


Fourth, your arguments are absurd because you advocate the militarization of police while arguing vehemently against using the military. That is semantics, pure and simple. You would blur the line between the two rather than expand the usage of the latter. That is ridiculous.
You are advocating the use of military forces in order to enforce the law, yet you take issue with the fact local police officers might be fitted with an assault rifle? And I'm accused of blurring the lines?

Is law enforcement defined by the equipment it uses or the function it serves. Ignoring the philosophical contradiction necessary for you conclude that the military should function in a law enforcement capacity, you completely fail to recognize that the military lacks the resources, manpower, and training to effectively operate as peace officers throughout the country. What you're now a proponent of would call for an armed military presence in EVERY town through out the country. You don't simply blur the line between police and military, you would ELIMINATE it. It is madness.

Fifth, you harp on the isolated nature of police abuses, and then you use an isolated situation like Bonnie and Clyde or the North Hollywood shooting to back up your claims that we need to give the police overkill. That is a good example of the exception proving the rule.
Absolutely untrue, and it demonstrates your gross ignorance of history concerning law enforcement. The Bonnie and Clyde example was simply the first one I thought of. But the pattern of criminals utilizing weapon technology at a pace faster than law enforcement has been repeating through out history. Be it with winchester repeating rifles (a military weapon at one time), Thompson machine guns, bar rifles, or just cars with big V8 engines to evade pursuit, there has been a constant battle between criminals and law enforcement, usually with law enforcement slow to catch up.

And, true to form, while you find ample time to explain why you don't need to respond, you ignore your responsibility to explain what is an appropriate level of equipment police should carry. Should they carry nothing more than a billy club? Just a .38 revolver? You take issue with non-lethal weapons like tasers, so I guess those aren't o.k. Should they be limited to only revolvers, or are semi-automatics o.k.? Would a BAR rifle be o.k.? Could they carry old Tommy guns? What about an MP5? Can we have a small group of highly trained, tactically proficient officers to deal with the most dangerous situations?

Should we call in the army to dismantle bombs? To deal with hostage situations? Or to take down car theft rings?

Sixth, you have continued attribute to me euphemisms such as "disarm" and "unequip", when I've stated that my position does not in any way resemble such silly language.
It's called double speak. You contradict yourself repeatedly. You say you don't want to disarm them, yet you and your posts define the militarization of the police, in part, by the equipment they use.


Finally, you continue to ignore my statements, favoring your incorrect and pejorative mischaracterizations instead. That is not debating in good faith. As long as you continue to misquote, misrepresent, argue by rhetorical question, attack by ad hominem, and fail to state your position,
And another reason for you to NOT respond to any of the direct challenges made to you through out the series of posts.

I've recognized every statement and I have challenged or pointed out the abusrdity of such claims on each and every opportunity.

I have stated my position with the utmost clarity. Nor have I backed away from my position or demonstrated any inconsistency. The same can not be said for you. And getting you to post anything specific has been a chore much like pulling teeth with you.

I have no desire to continue this conversation with you. You have proven nothing, zippo, nada, zilch; you have not convinced a single soul on this forum that you are right about this, and it is largely due to your tactics.
You make this statement with your figurative back firmly against the wall standing in the corner with no more wiggle room. You've also realized that you can't dig your way out of your critical failures in reason.

I'm sure you will want to get the last word here, but I don't know what you think you will accomplish, as I will not be responding. So for all the times that you urged me to avoid blasting people and instead try to get them to agree by using reasonable tactics, you will have failed and ruined your own reputation.
If anyone has taken interest in this thread enough to follow it into page two, I'm confident no one will consider anything I've said or posted to fall into the same category as the behavior that I have been critical of in the past. I do not cry victim. I do not engage in personal attacks meant to dismiss my responsibility to respond to anyone. I address EVERY ridiculous point even when they were designed to distract. I do not personalize my arguments. And I have been consistent and on topic through out the thread.

Again, read the thread from the beginning, maybe then you'll be able to focus on your argument rather than just defending yourself from the corner you backed yourself into.

Can anyone say beatdown ? :D

Can anyone say beatdown ? :D

Hmmm, their avitars tell it all. Steve McQueen or pussy hiding behind a gun?

;)

Here's an LEO's perspective: sure, we have these "militarized" teams, we go through tactical training, and we have lots of different weapons. But those weapons and tactics will never be used. Why? One word: liability. I'll leave it at that.

I wouldn't bother to worry. The weapons possessed by law enforcement will collect dust in peace.

Here's an LEO's perspective: sure, we have these "militarized" teams, we go through tactical training, and we have lots of different weapons. But those weapons and tactics will never be used. Why? One word: liability. I'll leave it at that.

I wouldn't bother to worry. The weapons possessed by law enforcement will collect dust in peace.

Tell that to the Jews under Hitler, the Russians under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, the Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh, the Japanese under militarist rule, and the Yugoslavians under Communist rule. That only accounts for the murder of over 128 MILLION people.

Tell that to the Jews under Hitler, the Russians under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, the Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh, the Japanese under militarist rule, and the Yugoslavians under Communist rule. That only accounts for the murder of over 128 MILLION people.

Totally irrelevant point. NO ONE in this thread has supported the confiscation of weapons, the revocation of the 2nd amendment, or the disarming of the population.

And mobilizing the military and increasing the role of the federal government and military in local law enforcement doesn't prevent the historic example you have just sited, it actually increases the potential of such a thing.

Rather than arguing that police should be less well equipped and trained, you'd be better served arguing that regular citizens should have less restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, especially in "blue" states.-- something most of use would all agree on.

Totally irrelevant point. NO ONE in this thread has supported the confiscation of weapons, the revocation of the 2nd amendment, or the disarming of the population.


Ah, but in many cases, being out-gunned is just as well as being un-armed.

Seriously, if you were to consider putting one fully equipped SWAT officer up against your average Joe American (remember, the particular scenario being referenced here is government vs. people, not cops vs. robbers) who *might* - but most likely doesn't even - own a single 9mm semi-automatic handgun, who would you expect to win?

Similarly, let's consider a SWAT team invasion of an innocent American's home, warranted on either false or mis-conveyed information. If I were behind a door where someone was suddenly pounding and shouting "Police", that person - who would subsequently bash the door in, since they have a "warrant" - would shortly be face-to-face with my own firearm, and a demand for proper identification. (I don't care what costume you're wearing, I want to see your badge and license.) Of course, they'd rather skip the introductions and take me down then and there since I probably don't have a chance of hitting an un-armored part of their body if I wanted to.

I don't remember if it was here, but didn't I see an article somewhere that described just such a scenario, in which an older lady was killed for trying to defend her home? I really don't care how many criminals are passed over because the police "aren't equipped or enabled to do their job". If that "equipment" or "enablement" results in just one innocent death by police hands, it's unacceptable.

I don't think anyone is really trying to argue that the police should be so under-equipped as not to be able to handle gang wars and such, but really the issue is that the standard of probable cause for a search warrant (and other operations) to be executed by a militarized police team needs to be raised dramatically, and the rules of engagement in such operations could definitely use a re-working as well.

Totally irrelevant point. NO ONE in this thread has supported the confiscation of weapons, the revocation of the 2nd amendment, or the disarming of the population.

And mobilizing the military and increasing the role of the federal government and military in local law enforcement doesn't prevent the historic example you have just sited, it actually increases the potential of such a thing.

Rather than arguing that police should be less well equipped and trained, you'd be better served arguing that regular citizens should have less restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, especially in "blue" states.-- something most of use would all agree on.

More of your circular reasoning without authority. Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. I never mentioned the disarming of the population, you inferred that from my examples. Jumping to conclusions, are we? But that is very typical of you in this thread, putting words in my mouth and distorting the issue for your own silly purposes. Nevertheless, it is TOTALLY relevant to consider a militarized police force coupled with a disarmed public. We already have the first half of that equation in place now. What do you think Hillary or Obama will try to do if they are elected President? What do you think half the country's elected officials want to do to America? To say that can't happen here is naive at best, idiotic at worst.

The fact is that those countries had more in common than just disarming the populations - they were police states where the government was all-powerful and the police forces had military capability. The Gestapo/GRU type law enforcement was ordered by corrupt governments to murder civilians in droves. If you think that couldn't happen here, you're a fool and you've forgotten that in WACO and Ruby Ridge not ONE SINGLE federal agent was prosecuted or even fired for their crimes. In fact, several of them were promoted. That is an institutional problem and you cannot deny it.

And don't try deflecting the issue with your lame old "Oh, so you want the Keystone Kops to be walking around smacking people with wet noodles, then?" bull crap. You won't even be on the same planet with me. I'm simply identifying a problem and you REFUSE to acknowledge it; in fact, you are clearly in favor of increasing the conditions necessary for a police state. That means you are either on the wrong side or a mind-numbed fool. Rather than constantly attacking somebody else's viewpoint while failing to state your own, why don't you put your own ideas out there and tell everybody what kind of America you want to see? But we already know that, don't we:

Security rather than liberty, law and order rather than personal freedom, control rather than rights, and squashing of criminal activity even if the cost of that is a few mistaken arrests or dead innocents a week (or what you would call collateral damage).