Comments on: The militarization of U.S. police forces Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: gkeeperwilly Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:44:00 +0000 I cringed when the passed the Patriot Act, we have essentially militarized every police force, and every federal and state entity under the guise of National “In”security.

I call for full repeal of PatAct, and demilitarizing civilian entities.

The insanity then as now that in the wrong hands it will be used a force of control against innocent people.

I look at the boston Police actions of last year as the potential abuses, kicking people out of homes for unwarranted searches, more of this will come if we do not stop it now.

By: jpferg Sat, 26 Oct 2013 01:06:47 +0000 I am the police, and I’m here to arrest you. You’ve broken the law. I did not write the law. I may disagree with the law but I will enforce it. No matter how you plead, cajole, beg or attempt to stir my sympathy. Nothing you do will stop me from placing you in a steel cage with gray bars. If you run away I will chase you. If you fight me I will fight back. If you shoot at me I will shoot back. By law I am unable to walk away. I am a consequence. I am the unpaid bill. I am fate with a badge and a gun. Behind my badge is a heart like yours. I bleed, I think, I love, and yes I can be killed. And although I am but one man, I have thousands of brothers and sisters who are the same as me. They will lay down their lives for me and I them. We stand watch together. The thin-blue-line, protecting the prey from the predators, the good from the bad. We are the police. – Brian Taylor in the film End of Watch

By: jpferg Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:07:47 +0000 It sounds like you want to start disarming American law enforcement, and that would be a mistake. We unfortunately live in very violent times and there are very bad people out there. If something like the Kenyan Mall tragedy were to happen here, you would see the benefit of law enforcement being well-equipped for increasingly violent events. Having armored vehicles greatly reduces the risk to law enforcement responding to high risk incidents, such as armed barricaded subjects, hostage situations, and high risk search warrants. Gang members and other criminals that are engaged in activities that are likely to bring them into contact with law enforcement are increasingly arming themselves with the same military style weapons you want to take away from the good guys. While I can’t comment as to the decision to obtain the helicopter that required costly repairs, I can say that having a rifle in every patrol vehicle is a very good idea. The average patrol officer in a marked cruiser is going to be the first to respond to a mall shooting, a movie theater shooting, or a school shooting. If there is someone actively shooting people, those first responding officers aren’t going to wait for a SWAT team. They have to act immediately and need like firepower to the perpetrators. If an officer, heaven forbid, has to put an immediate stop to a killing spree in a crowded place, he has a much better chance of hitting the bad guy and not innocent people with a rifle than a handgun. A general comment I can make about helicopters is that they are an extremely valuable asset to law enforcement. They can follow suspects fleeing in vehicles. They can search wooded areas day or night, preventing very dangerous woods searches by officers on the ground. They can provide overwatch of a location, giving updates to units on the ground. They are sometimes able to be utilized by multiple agencies, and can be used to assist fire crews with large fires.

As for your comments on abuses, there is going to be abuse if humans are involved. Law enforcement officers, like all people, are generally good. However, there are going to be boneheads that are either greedy, incompetent, stupid or otherwise, but they do not represent the majority. As far as your comment that this equipment is impractical, that is your opinion and only your opinion. It comes down to perspective. You have the luxury of believing there is no use for these types of things for American law enforcement. Good for you. Rest well knowing there are people out there willing to put their life on the line for you and your family, whether you like them or not, and even if you hate them.

Times are tough for public safety agencies financially. Your concern of cost of maintenance is valid, for those things that require frequent and/or costly maintenance. It all comes down to a cost-benefit analysis. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Take AR-15 style rifles. They require very little money to maintain, in the form of cleaning supplies.

I would like to know where you got the statistic that many law enforcement agencies don’t have the training to use this equipment. While training budgets and philosophies inevitably vary, I believe law enforcement in general is very well trained. On that note, if you want seasoned, well trained officers in your city, tell your elected officials to pay them appropriately so you can retain that experience.

Armored vehicles, such as the Lenco Bearcat, are typically deployed in response to high risk incidents, and do not “patrol” the streets like you imply. That includes the MRAP in Florida, which I know for a fact is not patrolling the streets like you ignorantly assumed. Or was that just fear-mongering to make a point? Additionally, Lenco Bearcats have been credited with saving lives in multiple extremely violent incidents in which “assault rifles” were used against law enforcement. Had those officers been in an unarmored vehicle, they would have been slaughtered. The fact is these vehicles have immense utility for law enforcement.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. – George Orwell

By: UserOne Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:34:22 +0000 This is just more corporate welfare. “Excess” weapons translates to “excessive purchases / contracts ” Who is selling these weapons to the federal government, and who is needlessly unnecessarily purchasing weapons?

Does giving the equipment of armies to state and local government transform the recipients into standing armies? Probably not, but I daresay this is equipment that local citizens do not wish their local badge-wearers to control. If the federal government wants this equipment dispersed throughout the US, then let it house that equipment at federal facilities, under federal control and responsibility. How is this equipment being protected from falling under the control of psychopaths, of any stripe? Who is responsible if this equipment is used unlawfully?

I stand firmly on the side of the “good guy.” Most often, that is law enforcement, but there are too many instances where citizens have become the victims of law enforcement gone berserk, and the evidence of that is undeniable to anyone with even a mild curiosity on the subject.

By: 2Borknot2B Thu, 24 Oct 2013 01:11:16 +0000 “Taxpayer money should not have to support the costs of maintaining the weapons of war that local police forces have acquired. Citizens deserve to know that their congressional leaders and law enforcement officers are working together to protect them — not recklessly engaging in a gluttonous arms race or irresponsibly losing dangerous weapons.” AMEN! The MIC just keeps getting sicker and sicker. ECT and Haldol, wouldn’t even phase the level of psychosis. Truly vile and despicable, lot. They are literally wanting civil war in America, nothing would thrill them more.

By: rikfre Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:40:40 +0000 You have a very valid point. However, I would imagine this, in some perverted way, is good for the economy. I would imagine that State troopers will be on the highways with Abrams tanks soon.