Conservative(?) asserts: Police "militarization" is necessary

Repeater · Aug 16, 2014

This is from Hot Air:

The “militarization” of police was not only inevitable, but necessary

In the background, a disturbing, larger national conversation has erupted out of the troubles in the St. Louis suburb. The hot topic everywhere seems to be a growing call to halt the so called “militarization” of the nation’s civilian police forces, highlighted by the riot suppression gear on display in Ferguson. It’s an argument coming from both sides of the ideological spectrum, too.

The local police stood on the edge of being completely overwhelmed. And whether or not you find their level of response appropriate, this one local disturbance has turned into a national demand to defang the police.

While I both understand and sympathize with the reminiscing for the good old days, the times have changed. The era of the lovable flatfoot, twirling his baton and wagging a finger at the precocious kid about to steal some penny candy has passed us by. Have we collectively forgotten the riots that took place following the Rodney King verdict? How about the now infamous North Hollywood shootout? And for our friends on the Left, what about the next time somebody goes into an elementary school armed with a Bushmaster and a couple of 9mm Glocks? You don’t want us arming the teachers or having local residents open carrying to keep the school grounds safe. “Leave it to the cops,” you say.

defang the police? Leave it to the cops?

No thanks.

OC for ME · Aug 16, 2014

Repeater said:
This is from Hot Air:

The “militarization” of police was not only inevitable, but necessary

defang the police? Leave it to the cops?

No thanks.

Keep the army gear, get rid of SWAT.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 16, 2014

OC for ME said:
Keep the army gear, get rid of SWAT.

Auction off the surplus military gear to the public. They shouldn't have either.

marshaul · Aug 17, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Auction off the surplus military gear to the public. They shouldn't have either.

+1 It really just isn't necessary. Especially now that the militias have been co-opted into a de facto standing army.

Incidentally, both of the riots he calls to mind would likely not have been precipitated in the first place were the "lovable flatfoot" on the scene instead of aggressive thugs. Not to defend the rioters, but there's a strong tradition in this country of the police predictably fomenting riots by:

First causing some excessive violence
Then, effectively goading protesters by showing up in riot gear – which is a historically-proven means to start a riot in a crowd that could go either way
Then using the resulting destruction as after-the-fact justification for their heavy-handed presence at the scene, and more broadly their general excesses in size, budgets, equipment, and use of force.

PeterNSteinmetz · Aug 17, 2014

From the original article "You don’t want us arming the teachers or having local residents open carrying to keep the school grounds safe. “Leave it to the cops,” you say. "

which interestingly misses exactly the point that OC near and in the schools and arming the teachers would be precisely a good solution to the problem!

sudden valley gunner · Aug 18, 2014

marshaul said:
+1 It really just isn't necessary. Especially now that the militias have been co-opted into a de facto standing army.

Incidentally, both of the riots he calls to mind would likely not have been precipitated in the first place were the "lovable flatfoot" on the scene instead of aggressive thugs. Not to defend the rioters, but there's a strong tradition in this country of the police predictably fomenting riots by:

First causing some excessive violence

Then, effectively goading protesters by showing up in riot gear – which is a historically-proven means to start a riot in a crowd that could go either way

Then using the resulting destruction as after-the-fact justification for their heavy-handed presence at the scene, and more broadly their general exceses in size, budgets, equipment, and use of force.

+1 Every year in May (Seattle) some protesters show up, every year in May things get out of hand when the cops get involved.

skidmark · Aug 18, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
+1 Every year in May (Seattle) some protesters show up, every year in May things get out of hand when the cops get involved.

I may have it wrong, but I seem to recall that the police do not line up from one edge of the street to the other and start walking towards the protesters until they are walking through the protesters.

A society does not maintain the majesty of the law by "making nice" with those who are destroying bits of that society. Riot sticks at high port and folks being taken (not beaten) to the ground, where the second line cuffs and stuffs them, sends a message that is hard to ignore. Throwing smoke and tear gas at them while allowing them to shift upwind - not so much.

Most street demonstrations do not need that level of response; many cities have been able to physically contain the folks who have taken to the streets and disuaded them from more than waving their arms about just by showing the level of force that could be loosed if things went much further. But once fires are set there is no question that the response needs to be overwhelming.

stay safe.

marshaul · Aug 18, 2014

skidmark said:
I may have it wrong, but I seem to recall that the police do not line up from one edge of the street to the other and start walking towards the protesters until they are walking through the protesters.

A society does not maintain the majesty of the law by "making nice" with those who are destroying bits of that society. Riot sticks at high port and folks being taken (not beaten) to the ground, where the second line cuffs and stuffs them, sends a message that is hard to ignore. Throwing smoke and tear gas at them while allowing them to shift upwind - not so much.

Most street demonstrations do not need that level of response; many cities have been able to physically contain the folks who have taken to the streets and dissuaded them from more than waving their arms about just by showing the level of force that could be loosed if things went much further. But once fires are set there is no question that the response needs to be overwhelming.

We're not talking about a city already in flames. We're talking about a crowd pissed-off at perceived abuse of authority, and how the response of that authority influences their actions (regardless of whether those actions are justifiable). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that such a crowd could easily be goaded into discrediting itself, because once disorder erupts a mob will easily cause severe property damage.

This has happened dozens of times in the 20th century. There are even videos of it occurring: a crowd of agitated protesters (not yet rioting, though) are confronted by a brigade of faceless enforcers in armor and with unusual weapons. Someone (does it matter who? It might even be an agent provocateur) throws a beer bottle or a small stone or something. The police respond as though they weren't wearing riot gear (the beer bottle constitutes a serious threat), and start gassing and generally pummeling the crowd, who respond by amping things into a genuine, general riot.

It's called a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

I've personally seen this happen in Oakland, where it's standard and pretty much explicit SOP on the part of the OPD.

Of course, nothing justifies looting and burning private property, and so the public at large is left with precisely zero sympathy for what might have been originally legitimate grievances on the part of protesters (as opposed to rioters). But that doesn't mean this isn't – intentionally or otherwise – a tool which has been used for centuries to divide the public into "tribes" set against one another (a communist would say "classes", but that's only one of many manifestations of tribalism in the public sphere). In this way the people are deterred from uniting in their dissatisfaction against the "power structure"; real reform is deferred.

So, go ahead and blame rioters for their aggressive actions. But don't let that stop you from seeing the forest for the trees.

Custodian · Aug 19, 2014

Yeah, about getting rid of S.W.A.T.

OC for ME said:
Keep the army gear, get rid of SWAT.

Sad to say, much like SCOTUS pretty much held up licenses and gun laws as constitutional (which I am not on board for) we'll have to accept that even attempting to dismantle SWAT teams will leave a hole, a vacuum, and something WILL TAKE ITS PLACE.

But what?

When I worked in enforcement, I've seen a better approach with the attempts like rapid response, to make officers better at well, being officers. The jury is still out on that training.

Inside the prisons, volunteers made up the more trained force of: PERT, SORT, and HNT. Gradual incremental officers for higher than daily risk problems.

Here in NC, Butner Public Safety (a town erected on federal lands, the former Camp Butner Army Base) required its officers to not only be trained as police officers BUT also REQUIRED them to be proficient as EMS/Paramedic as well as part-firefighter. Maybe that might be the ticket for the adrenaline junkie enforcers.

TL;DR?

To go from this

To perhaps this

Or even this,fat chance though

But we'll have to accept we'll never get this back

marshaul · Aug 19, 2014

Custodian said:
we'll have to accept that even attempting to dismantle SWAT teams will leave a hole, a vacuum, and something WILL TAKE ITS PLACE.

Why is that?

SWAT teams are not needed.

Custodian · Aug 19, 2014

Umm...a reality check?

marshaul said:
Why is that?

SWAT teams are not needed.

We're dealing with the same mentality that cannot even accept "shall not be infringed" for what it truly is, that's why.

Name the last thing the government ever gives up and just leaves it, as it is. I'll wait.

*cue Jeopardy jingle*

Thing is? I certainly can't name it at this moment. Government may or will scale back, but how it enforces or how it rules, well that ability it's certainly here to stay.

It's not right, by any means or any stretch, and I'd rather it to go away, completely, forever and ever amen, but I know now, that never happens.

Government will just change a name, or take the money for that bureau, department or whatever, and roll it somewhere else, so it never truly goes away. (Bureau of Investigation becomes FBI. OSS, leads to the CIA, even though the government dismantled the OSS, the powers that be said, nuh uh, and brought it back in a brand new form)

And while I hate to quote the ultimate RINO, Reagan, he had this insightful quote.

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

Ronald Reagan

TL;DR? Government only knows addition and multiplication, when it comes to itself. It has no concept of division or subtraction, until its time to screw us in tax money, rebates, refunds, etc. Then its the undisputed king of that crap.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 19, 2014

marshaul said:
We're not talking about a city already in flames. We're talking about a crowd pissed-off at perceived abuse of authority, and how the response of that authority influences their actions (regardless of whether those actions are justifiable). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that such a crowd could easily be goaded into discrediting itself, because once disorder erupts a mob will easily cause severe property damage.

This has happened dozens of times in the 20th century. There are even videos of it occurring: a crowd of agitated protesters (not yet rioting, though) are confronted by a brigade of faceless enforcers in armor and with unusual weapons. Someone (does it matter who? It might even be an agent provocateur) throws a beer bottle or a small stone or something. The police respond as though they weren't wearing riot gear (the beer bottle constitutes a serious threat), and start gassing and generally pummeling the crowd, who respond by amping things into a genuine, general riot.

It's called a "self-fulfilling prophecy".

I've personally seen this happen in Oakland, where it's standard and pretty much explicit SOP on the part of the OPD.

Of course, nothing justifies looting and burning private property, and so the public at large is left with precisely zero sympathy for what might have been originally legitimate grievances on the part of protesters (as opposed to rioters). But that doesn't mean this isn't – intentionally or otherwise – a tool which has been used for centuries to divide the public into "tribes" set against one another (a communist would say "classes", but that's only one of many manifestations of tribalism in the public sphere). In this way the people are deterred from uniting in their dissatisfaction against the "power structure"; real reform is deferred.

So, go ahead and blame rioters for their aggressive actions. But don't let that stop you from seeing the forest for the trees.

+1 Happens every year in Seattle. At this point I think the two groups look forward to their yearly bash.

marshaul · Aug 19, 2014

custodian said:
name the last thing the government ever gives up and just leaves it, as it is. I'll wait.

The WPA.

I agree with you, for the most part. But what the government plans to do should not affect what the people demand of it.

Perhaps, if the disconnect between the plan and the demand grows large enough, real reform might be forthcoming.

marshaul · Aug 19, 2014

Nightmare said:
CHP In ranks wall-to-wall waiting for orders to move out. I saw this tactic at many disturbances in the Sixties, where I lived, on my campus and at the Oakland AFEES riot.

I also noticed the eager cops in the exterior files and the less-so inside.

Yessir. California remains (well, parts of it) a hotbed of this sort of mutually-goaded confrontation.

Conservative(?) asserts: Police "militarization" is necessary

Repeater

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

PeterNSteinmetz

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

Custodian

Regular Member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

Custodian

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

marshaul

Campaign Veteran