Militarization of the police

Here’s a frightening thought, an APC rumbling along main street armed with a 50 cal. Machine gun and a squad of military garbed police armed with grenade launchers, m16 rifles and all the tear gas they can carry. Sounds like a war zone huh? We seem to be seeing more of this scenerio on TV than ever before. And no, Ferguson didn’t alarm me to this new innovation in local police tactics. While riding my bike near our town hall parked right next to it was an olive drab painted APC with the word POLICE painted on the side. The police chief is a former student who also builds houses (I live in a village remember) and I asked him about it. He said he was at a meeting in Columbus and one if the directors asked him if he wanted one. They were giving them away to police depts. so he said sure I’ll take one. I said “what the hell do you need with an APC” and he said’ well it was free. Anyway it’ll look good in a parade. It seems that the military are giving away used equipment to any and all police departments across the country. Either that of simply destroying it at tax payers expense. But why? They’re expensive to maintain, the vehicles are gas hogs, some getting as little as five miles to the gallon and are sending the wrong message to citizens who view them as war materiel. “You gonna make war on me for sparkin’ a fatty or speeding”? I’ve always viewed the police as our protection but am fully aware that there are problems with ill trained men (and women) in blue but these can be safely resolved by more effective training in an academy but strutting around with paramilitary equipment sends us the wrong message. It separates them from us. The police are protesters, not Occupiers. Do you have an APC in your area?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=0
Cap’t Jack

Was anyone else in Denver during the 2008 Democratic Convention?
The military state is here. Downtown along 16th Street, every intersection had a military outpost.
And the rest of downtown was pretty well manned also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb84xVMbfqA
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I first heard about this crowding experiment in early grade school (<1965), it made sense then.
Now we're getting to watch the experiment's implications playing out in real life. :down:
Medical Historian Examines NIMH Experiments in Crowding
http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm

I suspect that the weapons in the hands of the gun owning public in our increasingly gun happy culture have also moved in the direction of a military grade level as well. If the average guy can now own an assault rifle or machine gun, the logic probably follows that the police need bigger and better weapons because they will obviously be facing a much better armed suspect in gun fire exchanges. Now days, well financed criminals probably have military arms and bullet proff armor to rival the police.
I’m not saying that I agree with this trend. But, the more heavily armed our general public is allowed to be, the more heavily armed the police will need to be to respond when those weapons are used in crimes or by criminals. I thnk this is the natural progression of our disgusting and paranoid, gun happy culture.

I’m not saying that I agree with this trend. But, the more heavily armed our general public is allowed to be, the more heavily armed the police will need to be to respond when those weapons are used in crimes or by criminals. I thnk this is the natural progression of our disgusting and paranoid, gun happy culture.
I see your point but where will this armed escalation lead us in the future? The government isn't handing out free machine guns to citizens or allowing us to drive armored humvees on our streets. These weapons and AFVs give the police far more firepower than any street thug could muster even with his drug money. And I do agree BTW that we need to tone down the flaming pro-gun rhetoric that drives people to believe they must be heavily armed to protect themselves, but we've hashed and rehashed this topic many times before. My main concern is the increased use of military weapons and vehicles in the hands of poorly trained public servants bent on crushing dissent or the over use of force in otherwise mundane situations. Cap't Jack

There is another frightening scenario. A mob of armed protesters comes through your town shooting people with automatic weapons, shooting into houses and cars, and throwing molotov cocktails. Fire departments and ambulances can’t get through.
We live by the sword, we die by the sword.
Lois

And the police response is tear gas canisters to force back the crowd, then one, just one John Wayne opens up with a 50cal. Killing and maiming hundreds. Well, they probably shouldn’t have been there in the first place huh? No matter what the occasion, people are drawn to excitement and what usually begins as a protest often ends in a mob, mostly curious but mixed in with them are the mayhem makers. So, kill em all and let god sort them out? It’s a hard job for the police, I know but military hardware and strong armed tactics don’t solve the problem. If anything it just makes it worse. Of course they could always use the sniper rifles they were given to pick off the thugs in the crowd.
Cap’t Jack

. I'm not saying that I agree with this trend. But, the more heavily armed our general public is allowed to be, the more heavily armed the police will need to be to respond when those weapons are used in crimes or by criminals. I thnk this is the natural progression of our disgusting and paranoid, gun happy culture.
So do you agree or not? Why the "but"? Either it is a stupid argument that dates back to pre-hominid thinking or it is valid and logical. If you chose "valid and logical" I can write a dissertation on where the logic fails.
And the police response is tear gas canisters to force back the crowd, then one, just one John Wayne opens up with a 50cal. Killing and maiming hundreds. Well, they probably shouldn't have been there in the first place huh? No matter what the occasion, people are drawn to excitement and what usually begins as a protest often ends in a mob, mostly curious but mixed in with them are the mayhem makers. So, kill em all and let god sort them out? It's a hard job for the police, I know but military hardware and strong armed tactics don't solve the problem. If anything it just makes it worse. Of course they could always use the sniper rifles they were given to pick off the thugs in the crowd. Cap't Jack
Yes, people should never live where a riot might break out! How does anyone pick out thugs in a crowd of thugs? Lois

I do not like or agree with this trend. I am simply saying it appears to me that the escalation in arming the police is partly in response the increased arming of the citizenry. You can shoot all the holes you want in my logic, but can you prove that this is not part of something bigger than just police getting highly armed for no reason?
I think I’m am asking an obvious question. What is the reasoning of a trend to arm the police so much more heavily than in the past? What other factors could play a part? I’m guessing that the police in some areas feel the need to be armed at a level higher than the criminals they face.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOWSDtxERU
An escalating arming of police is not happening in a vacuum.
However, the use of military arms in response to a demonstration is unconscionable. There is no evidence that the demonstrators are presenting a threat that justifies the use of military grade arms and weapons.

Yes, people should never live where a riot might break out! How does anyone pick out thugs in a crowd of thugs?
So you're assuming that everyone, let's use Ferguson as a recent event, in the crowd is a thug and not a legitimate demonstrator or curiosity seeker? That of course doesn't at all square with the facts. There were outsiders from other areas with other agendas who wanted to escalate the demonstration into a riot for their own ends, looting and burning. It's happened many times before BTW. Riots may break out anywhere and at anytime in any city so we should prepare to slaughter them with overwhelming military might as we did in the 19th Century? How about rubber or beanbag bullets instead of M16s? That's my point. Cap't Jack
I suspect that the weapons in the hands of the gun owning public in our increasingly gun happy culture have also moved in the direction of a military grade level as well. If the average guy can now own an assault rifle or machine gun, the logic probably follows that the police need bigger and better weapons because they will obviously be facing a much better armed suspect in gun fire exchanges. Now days, well financed criminals probably have military arms and bullet proff armor to rival the police. I'm not saying that I agree with this trend. But, the more heavily armed our general public is allowed to be, the more heavily armed the police will need to be to respond when those weapons are used in crimes or by criminals. I thnk this is the natural progression of our disgusting and paranoid, gun happy culture.
Yup, that's a tough one to argue against. And given the sound some of them local boys (multiple gun lovers in these parts) make down at their practice range, those assault weapons are everywhere these days. While the beat goes on. . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh for the record, I have no phobia about gun, and know how to handle one, and have even gone on a couple hunting trips. It's just they seem to bring as much trouble as they supposedly save.
I suspect that the weapons in the hands of the gun owning public in our increasingly gun happy culture have also moved in the direction of a military grade level as well. If the average guy can now own an assault rifle or machine gun, the logic probably follows that the police need bigger and better weapons because they will obviously be facing a much better armed suspect in gun fire exchanges. Now days, well financed criminals probably have military arms and bullet proff armor to rival the police. I'm not saying that I agree with this trend. But, the more heavily armed our general public is allowed to be, the more heavily armed the police will need to be to respond when those weapons are used in crimes or by criminals. I thnk this is the natural progression of our disgusting and paranoid, gun happy culture.
Yup, that's a tough one to argue against. And given the sound some of them local boys (multiple gun lovers in these parts) make down at their practice range, those assault weapons are everywhere these days. While the beat goes on. . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh for the record, I have no phobia about gun, and know how to handle one, and have even gone on a couple hunting trips. It's just they seem to bring as much trouble as they supposedly save. I'll let Moyers and Co sort this one out for me]

It’s disconcerting, but it’s nothing new; Police were using Tommy guns and BAR’s in the 1920s. Even in the 19th century, law men often had more dangerous rifles before the Army adopted them.

I suspect that the weapons in the hands of the gun owning public in our increasingly gun happy culture have also moved in the direction of a military grade level as well. If the average guy can now own an assault rifle or machine gun, the logic probably follows that the police need bigger and better weapons because they will obviously be facing a much better armed suspect in gun fire exchanges. Now days, well financed criminals probably have military arms and bullet proff armor to rival the police. I'm not saying that I agree with this trend. But, the more heavily armed our general public is allowed to be, the more heavily armed the police will need to be to respond when those weapons are used in crimes or by criminals. I thnk this is the natural progression of our disgusting and paranoid, gun happy culture.
Yup, that's a tough one to argue against. And given the sound some of them local boys (multiple gun lovers in these parts) make down at their practice range, those assault weapons are everywhere these days. While the beat goes on. . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh for the record, I have no phobia about gun, and know how to handle one, and have even gone on a couple hunting trips. It's just they seem to bring as much trouble as they supposedly save. I'll let Moyers and Co sort this one out for me] Joshua Holland in particular. He makes sense to me.
I suspect that the weapons in the hands of the gun owning public in our increasingly gun happy culture have also moved in the direction of a military grade level as well. If the average guy can now own an assault rifle or machine gun, the logic probably follows that the police need bigger and better weapons because they will obviously be facing a much better armed suspect in gun fire exchanges. Now days, well financed criminals probably have military arms and bullet proff armor to rival the police. I'm not saying that I agree with this trend. But, the more heavily armed our general public is allowed to be, the more heavily armed the police will need to be to respond when those weapons are used in crimes or by criminals. I thnk this is the natural progression of our disgusting and paranoid, gun happy culture.
Yup, that's a tough one to argue against. And given the sound some of them local boys (multiple gun lovers in these parts) make down at their practice range, those assault weapons are everywhere these days. While the beat goes on. . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh for the record, I have no phobia about gun, and know how to handle one, and have even gone on a couple hunting trips. It's just they seem to bring as much trouble as they supposedly save. I'll let Moyers and Co sort this one out for me]Big mistake. :lol:
It’s disconcerting, but it’s nothing new; Police were using Tommy guns and BAR’s in the 1920s. Even in the 19th century, law men often had more dangerous rifles before the Army adopted them.
Yes it Is Mike, the reason the police were using military weapons in the post war era was due to a surplus, and they were being sold on the open market to anyone who wanted to buy them. Tompsons could be bought by citizens which is how they ended up in the hands of the Mafia BTW. And in the 19th Century, what particular weapon/s did the police employ that had a greater firepower than the military? New York City police carried a five shot 36cal. Revolver while Union and Confederate officers carried weapons with a much greater firepower e.g. The LeMatt revolver was a nine shot 44cal. With a 28 gage shotgun barrel underneath. After the war the standard firearm for the military was the colt 45 later purchased by local police and the "cowboys". The police used sawed off shotguns, carbines anything that could be culled from army surplus stores. Cap't Jack
Yes, people should never live where a riot might break out! How does anyone pick out thugs in a crowd of thugs?
So you're assuming that everyone, let's use Ferguson as a recent event, in the crowd is a thug and not a legitimate demonstrator or curiosity seeker? That of course doesn't at all square with the facts. There were outsiders from other areas with other agendas who wanted to escalate the demonstration into a riot for their own ends, looting and burning. It's happened many times before BTW. Riots may break out anywhere and at anytime in any city so we should prepare to slaughter them with overwhelming military might as we did in the 19th Century? How about rubber or beanbag bullets instead of M16s? That's my point. Cap't Jack
When you're under fire, you or a family member is injured or your house is on fire and the streets are filled with rioters armed with guns and molotov cocktails will you want a police force equipped with nothing but rubber or beanbag bullets? In fact, I don't like a militarized police force either, but sometimes it's necessary. It is most necessary where the citizenry may be militarized, such as in the US. We all pay very dearly for the 2nd Amendment. Lois
When you’re under fire, you or a family member is injured or your house is on fire and the streets are filled with rioters armed with guns and molotov cocktails will you want a police force equipped with nothing but rubber or beanbag bullets? In fact, I don’t like a militarized police force either, but sometimes it’s necessary. It is most necessary where the citizenry may be militarized, such as in the US. We all pay very dearly for the 2nd Amendment.
No, that's ludicrous Lois of course not. Neither do I want this "war zone", "on the front line" attitude and that these rioters are "the enemy of the State" and must be crushed with overwhelming force. In that situation (and I've personally witnessed this BTW) a couple of water cannons will suffice along with pepper gas, and believe me it works very well. You don't need military equipment on American streets. Hell, think about the conspiracy stories already floating around in the wacko militia camps. They already believe that the black helicopters, now drones are hovering around their bunkers. And your contention about the necessity of massive police force is the scare tactic the NRA uses to justify semiautomatic arms sales to citizens. "Quick, grab your AR 15, the police are coming to take your guns". And the only way the "citizenry" may be militarized legally is if they join the National Guard. On Fox (gag) news just yesterday there was a shot of police in military grear being trained to storm a house with the caption "on the front lines", followed with yet another story about a high school in Texas where the entire staff is armed and guests are warned about it. How'd you like to attend that school? A former army colonel has started a school to train teachers how to kill, oh I mean defend themselves. We don't want a Gaza or a green zone or a Ramallah popping up here. And no one needs to be killed for selling pot. Cap't Jack

Where were you folks when the FBI HRT was using M1 Abrams MBT’s to end the Branch Davidian siege at Waco?
:down:

Setting in front of our TVs probably just as horrified as you were at the extreme use of tanks to take down that cult wacko. It would have saved many lives if they had been able to lure him out, and I’m sure you saw the condemnation the ATF got over their siege. But then again, that was the ATF, an arm of the US government and not partially trained local police itching to use free government surplus ATVs.
Cap’t Jack