General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsACLU Report On U.S. Police "SWAT Teams Are Using The Weapons Of War
#t=343Michigander_Life
(549 posts)The police need armored vehicles and high powered rifles because the damn gun humpers are armed to the teeth with military style rifles.
Bullet proof vests do NOTHING to stop a bullet fired from an AR-15 or AK-47 rifle.
We need to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all privately owned guns, and THEN we can roll back the militarization of police.
And end the war on drugs.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)Michigander_Life
(549 posts)When those officers are gunned down by sovereign citizens and tea party militiamen armed with weapons of war.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Political radicals were killing cops back in the 1960's and 70's. The current trend is based on little more than authorities using hyper-violence against non-violent criminals.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)We need a national commission on law enforcement standards and practices.
Agree, though, that the widespread availability of firearms gives police the excuse to go all paramilitary.
Of course, police choice of tactics should also be questioned. Two Texas police officers have been killed in the past six months doing home invasion-style "no-knock" drug raids. They died because their commanders chose to treat American citizens in their homes as if they were terrorists in their redoubts. And the armed American citizens reacted in an unsurprising manner when their homes were invaded in the middle of the night by screaming thugs kicking down their doors. A grand jury even refused to indict the shooter in the first incident.
Whatever happened to "We have the place surrounded. Come out with your hands up!"?
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)I wouldn't mind seeing our law enforcement system revamped. We have federal law enforcement, state law enforcement, county (sheriff) and local municipal police. There are elected constables in some areas and simply there are too many quirky and clunky facets to our law enforcement system that makes it unwieldy, difficult to train and slow to adapt to law and technology.
We need a national set of standards. If an agency fails to meet the standards, the agency is dissolved and the next rung on the law enforcement ladder takes over. If it's a local agency, the county sheriff takes over. If it's a county sheriff agency, the state police take over. If it's state, the Feds take over.
I also think the police need military style equipment if they're going to be facing military style weaponry. Look what happened at the North Hollywood shootout when the police DIDNT have weapons of war, but the suspects did.
Once we get police under a national standard, we can curb the use of swat teams to serve drug warrants and curb no knock warrants. Swat teams should be used for barricaded and active shooters, and should be used for serving high risk warrants on dangerous armed criminals (murderers, gang members, etc).
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)The War on drugs. The view is that the suspects would flush the drugs down the sinks or toilets, so the police say they must go in in force to not give the suspects time. So while the old approach of knocking on the door got almost all suspects out peacefully, the War on Drugs has required police to go in fully armed like soldiers because they are performing home invasion on every drug related arrest.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...more than the lives of our cops or our citizens.
There's two dead cops in Texas in the past six months because they went on no-knock drug raids.
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)And the old adage of "announcing" as police is no use now either. There have been three criminal home invasions here in SE CT in the last few months, and in each case the invaders yelled "Police! Get on the floor!". People I talk with at work have commented that now they would fight back even if they heard that, since it could be criminals.
I am not that concerned about it, given that the prevailing view in the region is the three homes were likely not completely innocent, if you know what I mean...
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)The ACLU just highlighted in a report that the sole cause of the militarization of police was the war on drugs. Guns capable of defeating a bullet proof vest have existed for 150 years. My 1898 Mauser can easily defeat one as can any bolt action hunting rifle.
Who and how do you intend to confiscate the 310 million firearms in citizen hands? If anything, it would makes the police even more militarized. The track record on this is very poor. Even when a state implements a decent rule like limiting magazine capacities, the police are always exempted. Every state exempts the police from the rules. You think that's not going to just continue on?
NickB79
(19,113 posts)The guns the gun nuts own today are pretty much the same as the ones they owned 20 years ago, with the same size magazines firing the same ammo then as they do now. The only difference is, they own a lot more of them today than they did then.
Does this matter, or justify the SWAT going full-on Seal Team Six on civilians? FUCK NO.
Why? Because even with the large jump in the number of military-style rifles sold in the past decade, the crime rate has fallen by almost HALF: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says
There were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people in 1993, the says, which dropped to 3.6 gun deaths in 2010. The study relied in part on data from the .
"Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew," according to the Pew study. "The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearmassaults, robberies and sex crimeswas 75 percent lower in 2011 than in 1993."
All of that is good news but many Americans don't seem to be aware of it. In a survey, the Pew Research Center found that only 12 percent of Americans believe the gun crime rate is lower today than it was in 1993; 56 percent believe it's higher.
And, just as it's been for decades, rifles of ALL sorts account for somewhere around 300 murders/year, vs the 6000+ that are done by handguns, and the couple thousand done with shotguns.
Do we need SWAT teams today? Yes; there will always be events where specialized units are required. Do we have to arm every officer with the same battle gear the US Marines fielded in Fallujah, when they spend 90% of their time issuing speeding tickets? No.
The police have NO justification for increasing their firepower in the way they have. The more "toys" they have at their disposal, the more willing they'll be to use them. On us. As they say, when you have a hammer in your hand, everything starts to look like a nail.
TheKentuckian
(24,945 posts)The greatest dangers are largely self inflicted and are certainly self perpetuating.
I will also say the danger is greatly overstated, being a cop is safer than being a damn cab driver even with the stupid and failed drug war driving almost all the violence.
TheKentuckian
(24,945 posts)If that doesn't hitch their little red wagon then community ostracism and give them the same solidarity on pensions and benefits they have shown to the rest of us from their catbird seat.
By all means put them in Volts, increase standards, freeze or cut pay, and an automatic one year hiatus from the street (desk duty only, justified or not) with the use of deadly force and only released back to active duty after passing psychological exams.
The revenue streams must be slowed, their are too many incentives to keep on keeping on along the path we are on and it won't end well for most of us.
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)I can admit that the cops have been a bit crazy, but what happens when the criminals are ARMED TO THE TEETH, and we send our new police out there. Target pratice, nothing more.
There are some gangs that are better armed than any paramilitary, right down to the full metal jacket rounds.
NutmegYankee
(16,177 posts)Most handgun ammunition uses it as it reduces lead fouling of the barrel. It actually makes the rounds less lethal since the bullet doesn't expand in flesh. A vest will stop all handgun rounds if properly designed. The most dangerous gun to police is a bolt action hunting rifle since nearly all hunting calibers will easily penetrate a vest. Ironically, this is the only gun allowed in the strictest gun control countries like Australia.
Even if the criminals are heavily armed, all police need to do is contain the area and eventually they will surrender. And as I mentioned, if force must be used and the subjects are clothed in bullet proof vests, a simple bolt action rifle will stop them. The standard battle rifles of Germany, Britain, Russia, and Japan in WWII were bolt action rifles.
TheKentuckian
(24,945 posts)danger.
The violence is almost all a policy creation and also greatly overstated. It is more dangerous to drive a damn cab.
Please stop pretending these folks are getting mowed down and constantly shot at, it is bullshit. They kill more of us.
Stop with the no knock bullshit and high speed chases and they would be safer than many workers.
Give me a cruiser over a coal mine any day of the week. I'd take cop over convenience store clerk anytime.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)citizens creating blood baths in the streets. We need military police to contain the terrorist US citizens because it's obvious they're taking over!!!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)with everything he's said.