• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Article on the militarization of our police departments

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60717

Dave Gibson
May 05, 2008

Today, police departments across the United States more closely resemble an occupying army than they do public servants responding to calls for help. Police officers can now be seen wearing helmets and body armor and carrying AR-15's, just to deliver simple warrants. The militarization of our police departments not only gives the appearance of a military dictatorship but places the public at great risk.

No less than 70 percent of U.S. cities now have SWAT teams. In cities with a population of 50,000 or more, 90 percent have SWAT teams.

Eastern Kentucky University professor Peter Kraska told the Washington Post that SWAT teams are currently sent out 40,000 times a year in the U.S. During the 1980's, SWAT teams were only used 3,000 times a year. Most of the time, SWAT teams are being sent out to simply serve warrants on non-violent drug offenders.

Many municipalities are using Homeland Security grants to even purchase large armored vehicles. The Pittsburgh Police Department now uses their 20-ton armored truck complete with rotating turret and gun ports to deliver many of their warrants. Pittsburgh Police Sgt. Barry Budd recently told the Associate Press: "We live on being prepared for 'what if'."

Our police departments now regularly receive free surplus equipment from the U.S. military, which they readily accept. The training being given at many police academies appears to be the type of tactics one would use in Baghdad, rather than Baltimore. It would seem that our police officers are being readied for war, with the American public as the enemy. In the last several years, there has been a transformation from community policing to pre-emptive assaults

On January 24, 2006, Dr. Salvatore Culosi was shot and killed outside his house by a Fairfax County SWAT officer. Police used the SWAT team to serve a documents search warrant, after Dr. Culosi came under suspicion for taking sports bets. The investigation began after Fairfax Detective David Baucom solicited a bet with Dr. Culosi at a local sports bar.

Dr. Culosi was standing outside his home while talking with Det. Baucom, when SWAT Officer Deval Bullock quickly approached with his gun drawn and fatally shot Dr. Culosi in the chest. Court documents report that Culosi never made any threatening movements and made no attempt to run as he watched the SWAT team move in around him.

Dr. Culosi had no history of violence nor any criminal history whatsoever. He operated two successful optometry clinics at Wal-Marts in Manassas and Warrenton, Va. His parents have filed a $12 million lawsuit against the county of Fairfax, Va.

On the night of January 17, 2008, a police SWAT team surrounded Ryan Frederick´s home in Chesapeake, Va. The police were there to serve a drug warrant based on a tip from a criminal informant.

As usual, 28 year-old Ryan Frederick had gone to sleep early in order to leave the house before dawn for his job with a soda distributor. He awoke to a commotion of screams and the distinct sound of someone breaking down his front door.

Frederick´s house had been broken into a few days earlier, being a slight man of only a little over 100 pounds, Frederick feared for his safety. After the break-in, he purchased a gun.

Understandably frightened, Frederick grabbed his gun and when he got to the front of his house, he saw a man trying to crawl through the bottom portion of his door. Terrified that the intruders had returned, he fired.

The man he shot was not an aggressive burglar, nor a drug-crazed murderer, he was Det. Jarrod Shivers. The police detective and military veteran died almost immediately. Frederick was charged with first-degree murder and now sits in a jail cell awaiting trial.

As for the marijuana-growing operation for which police were looking, nothing was found. Only a very small amount of marijuana was discovered on the Frederick property, only enough to charge him with misdemeanor possession. Frederick has admitted that he uses marijuana occasionally but has never been involved with producing nor selling the drug.

Ryan Frederick has no prior history of violence, nor any criminal history whatsoever. He took care of his grandmother until her death two years ago, had a full-time job, and recently became engaged. In his spare time, he worked in his yard and tended to his Koi pond…Not quite the drug kingpin type!

However, based solely on the word of an informant, police obtained a warrant and stormed into this man´s house in the dark of night. The information turned out to be false, a police officer and father of three is dead, and a decent young man´s life is now over.

When Ryan Frederick awoke to the sounds of his home being invaded, he did what many of us would do. He acted reasonably when he grabbed his gun to defend himself and fired at a man who he believed was breaking into his home to do him harm.

Had the police simply went to his home during the daytime and knocked on his door, they could have questioned Frederick and found their information to be groundless. A little traditional police work could have saved the life of a police officer and the Shivers and Frederick families would have remained whole.

The Ryan Frederick story is truly frightening because this same scenario could play itself out in your home or mine. In the age of militarized police departments, we are all in danger.

Here are a few more recent victims of our militarized police departments:

Cheryl Lynn Noel, a mom who was shot by police for picking up her legally registered handgun. She went for her gun to defend herself after a SWAT team in the middle of the night, broke into her Baltimore, MD home. Police stormed her house that night because they claim to have found marijuana seeds in the family's trash can.

Rev. Acelyne Williams, 75 of Boston, died of a heart attack as a SWAT team broke into his home. Police actually had the wrong address.

92 year old Kathryn Johnston who was so fearful that she never left her home and would only open her door after friends who placed her groceries on the front porch had left, was killed by an Atlanta SWAT team last year. An erroneous tip from an informant was enough for the Atlanta Police Department to invade her home. Police have since admitted to lying to obtain a search warrant and to planting drugs in her home after killing her.

In 2006, a 52 member SWAT team stormed into a Denver home in search of a friendly small-stakes poker game. The same thing happened a few months later when SWAT and K-9 units barged in on a charity poker game in Baltimore.

When someone straps on body armor and large caliber weapons, their adrenalin levels begin to surge. As they arrive at the scene, those levels increase. When these now militarized police officers actually break into a dark home and begin shouting at terrified citizens, severe injury and death is likely to occur. It is beyond reason to employ these tactics on anyone other than hardened, violent criminals.

SWAT teams were created in the wake of the 1966 University of Texas sniper shooting spree by ex-marine Charles Whitman. Police did not have the firepower to reach Whitman, who was perched atop the 27-story clock tower. Civilians with hunting rifles came to the scene and joined with police in the effort to stop Whitman. Eventually, police officers and a well-armed citizen scaled the stairs of the tower and killed Whitman, but not before he killed 17 people and injured another 31. As a result of the incident, police departments began to assemble small teams of highly trained officers with equipment specific to sniper shootings, hostage situations, bank robberies, etc.

SWAT teams were designed to deal with very violent individuals who represent a clear and present threat to the public. However, they are now being used to execute warrants on non-violent offenders and even those who have no prior criminal history at all. Turning our neighborhood cops into shock troops will do nothing but erode public confidence in the police and endanger the lives of innocent Americans.

Recently, Boston´s new police commissioner William Fitchet announced that the department´s Street Crimes Unit will begin wearing military-style black uniforms, to instill a sense of "fear." At last week´s city council meeting, police Sgt. John Delaney told council members that the black uniforms would send the message that officers were serious.

Did someone declare martial law?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Look at the rank for the police departments. DC has 4 star generals and many others have full bird colonels. The rank is all military and has been for years.

I do not see departments becoming more military... they have always been military based.

Unfortunately.... people have been known kill the police as they attempt to take legal action. No matter how much the homeowner may object....a valid search warrant must be allowed.

So making entry may require additional protection such as a helmet and shield to protect against a history of homeowners shooting to stop the action.

It is unfortunate that the police must take such safeguards but this is just how it is.

Pistols and shotguns are no longer enough either. Rifles are a must have item now to fight those that wear body armor and are too far away with their own rifles.

As with anything in life... the bag guys learn how to exploit the system to their benefit. In this case... most cops did not have rifles and cannot hit bad guys form a distance.

Look at the LAPD bank robbery from a few years back.... the bad guys had rifles and the cops had shotguns... bad guys handed the cops their a$$es.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

I would agree that militarization is indeed necessary for the police departments of today.

That is, police departments that do the dirty work of politicians who prey on malum prohibitum offenders, and who must violate citizens and their rights regularly in order to carry out these most offensive of tasks. Maybe if Big Brother would stop indirectly creating so many violent (and non-violent) criminals, we wouldn't need de facto martial law.

The unfortunate truth is that opposing this militarization of police departments is putting officers' lives in danger. What we need to address is the political process that is putting the officers in these situations in the first place.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Please... tell me the best way to get the job done where it does not involve risk.... and I will back you up in Richmond!!

But everything about the job has risk. The only way out of the risk is to do nothing.

Cops that sit and do nothing are bashed by the citizens that want them out there getting bad people.

The cycle continues... :lol:
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

I've noticed a trend at the community-college police academies that they have adopted boot camp-like training methods. The recruits wear black and do the synchronized jogs in cadence and shouting "hoo-ahh" and such, replete with high-and-tight haircuts, etc. A far cry from the sheriff's fat drinking buddies getting deputized like when I was a kid.

An inevitable, if unintended, consequence of this "militarization" is that contacts with citizenry will more readily escalate into adversarial/heated confrontations. My car recently stalled on the road and a canine unit just happened to be stopped behind me waiting for me to get the car going. The cop was getting the dog out approaching my car by the time I got it started. I just waived to the guy as I pulled away, but I'm sure he'd have had the dog check me and the car out by default. The dog was barking like mad and I didn't relish the though of it getting near me at all, so I'm glad it got resolved without incident. I've had enough "fishing trips" turn sour on me.

I don't object to the police getting equipment they need to do their jobs otherwise. Let them carry rifles. It's appropriate that they have flexible response capabilities. I'm just concerned that they may come to rely on heavy-handed methods bydefault.

-ljp
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

What is funny is that many here are prior military and most here support the military.

So the military is not viewed in a bad light. But the notion that the police are becoming more military like is so awful and some find it appalling.

The values and order that the military mentality beings has to be a good thing. Having a group of people operate in an orderly manner respecting the rank of those above them and understanding rules and regulations goes along with all that.

But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

Can you tell me how often you have seen the police walking around with shot guns slung up on traffic stops or while going to a fight call? The police have had shot guns for a long time and most all cars have them.

Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
 

smccomas

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
235
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
What is funny is that many here are prior military and most here support the military.

So the military is not viewed in a bad light. But the notion that the police are becoming more military like is so awful and some find it appalling.

The values and order that the military mentality beings has to be a good thing. Having a group of people operate in an orderly manner respecting the rank of those above them and understanding rules and regulations goes along with all that.

But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

Can you tell me how often you have seen the police walking around with shot guns slung up on traffic stops or while going to a fight call? The police have had shot guns for a long time and most all cars have them.

Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.

Not really, we are not reading about USmilitary units killing american citizens. Thats the difference.

edited for spelling
 

Flintlock

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
1,224
Location
Alaska, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
Why so defensive? Not trying to bash you or police officers just curious..

Question...How do you explain the Torch teams in NYC carrying M4's and MP5's around in public? How is that any different than a military unit during a peace keeping mission or specialized raid?

Do you see the benefits in a society like ours in having a Posse Comitatus Act? If we equip and train our police to be soldiers then why have it?

I don't have a problem with the police having rifles to combat the gang bangers and robbersthat shootat them and I do support the need for a SWAT team. However, I do have a problem with making soldiers out of them and making most or all of them SWAT team capable. Even as a police officer, don't you see the problems that would arisewiththat police state mentality?

Look at all the countries that operate like that? Is that what you want,more or less anauthoritarian society?

Most importantly, do you find all these acts above and in the articleto be constitutional?
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
What is funny is that many here are prior military and most here support the military.

So the military is not viewed in a bad light. But the notion that the police are becoming more military like is so awful and some find it appalling.

The values and order that the military mentality beings has to be a good thing. Having a group of people operate in an orderly manner respecting the rank of those above them and understanding rules and regulations goes along with all that.

But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

Can you tell me how often you have seen the police walking around with shot guns slung up on traffic stops or while going to a fight call? The police have had shot guns for a long time and most all cars have them.

Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
I don't think that seeing the miltarizing of our civilian police force as being a slippery slope to violating posse comitatus as even slightly humorous or as "spin". Given the degree to which some department are now armed we are reaching a point where all levels of gov't essentially have their own military. It should scare the hell out of people to think that their county and city essentially have their own standing military. By historic standards of military small arms firepower, many American police depts are better armed on that level than many countries. Hell, give the LA County/City PD some artillary and they are pretty much as well or better armed as most latin American nations. And yeah, I have a problem with that.

In response to an utter failure at every level of gov't to protect the citizens, protect the borders, prevent crime and actually enforce the laws against criminals instead of LACs who just made an unintentional mistake, LE thinks the answer is to better arm the enforcement arm of those failed levels of gov't. :shock: That is, in even an only marginally rational world, utterly retarded!! You don't further arm people or a gov't which has already proven it's utter inability to make good decisions. On top of all that, it IS essentially an end-run around posse comitatus so while perhaps not a violation by letter of law, it is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law, something LEOs (at least where I have lived) regularly arrest people for doing.

Does anyone think that when the Posse Comitatus Act was passed that if the feds had pulled out the troops as required, and then brought in an administrator to give federal grants to the local political body, which in turn proceeded to hire hundreds of the recently evacuated, now honorably discharged, troops as LEOs, and then armed them almost exactly as they had been armed a month earlier when they were soldiers, that it would have been considered A-OK with everyone? Heck no!!

Hiring a bunch of ex-US miltary, arming them nearly the same as when they were US military using money from the same federal gov't that trained them in the military, and making them co-ordinate with the feds in the name of homeland security, pretty much creates a "civilian" standing military calling itself LE. That is EXACTLY the kind of BS the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent. The lack of artillary and the fact that LE doesn't get their checks direct from the US Treasury in NO WAY changes what LE is becoming in many places.

For the record, I do NOT blame the average LEO on the street for any of this. This is all taking place at higher levels. Most LEOs probably aren't even thinking about any of it in those terms. But trying to argue that this is all A-OK is preposterous! Firepower is NOT a substitute for good fundamental police work, but in many urban areas it is used that way.
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
The only way out of the risk is to do nothing.
In many cases, that's exactly what needs to be done. This isn't a criticism of the police, whose job it is to enforce the laws, it's a criticism of the legislators who pass bad laws.

Not that I don't think there's criticism to be leveled at the police departments as well, but I'm sure others will cover that.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Flintlock wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
But some try to spin it and say it it the government's way to get around the military operating on US soil against the people. Humorous....

Not many patrol cars are going to get rifles. Only a few selected people who have been picked for their ability to shoot well and make good decisions are going to be given rifles.
Why so defensive? Not trying to bash you or police officers just curious..

Question...How do you explain the Torch teams in NYC carrying M4's and MP5's around in public? How is that any different than a military unit during a peace keeping mission or specialized raid?

Do you see the benefits in a society like ours in having a Posse Comitatus Act? If we equip and train our police to be soldiers then why have it?

I don't have a problem with the police having rifles to combat the gang bangers and robbersthat shootat them and I do support the need for a SWAT team. However, I do have a problem with making soldiers out of them and making most or all of them SWAT team capable. Even as a police officer, don't you see the problems that would arisewiththat police state mentality?

Look at all the countries that operate like that? Is that what you want,more or less anauthoritarian society?

Most importantly, do you find all these acts above and in the articleto be constitutional?
Oh My.. Not being defensive... Just raising a question.

I did not see "torch teams" in NYC so I cannot respond since I have no clue what they were doing. If you are speaking about teams assigned to protect the events surrounding the torch run... would you not agree that this is a special situation that had been attacked a few times already?

Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding?

POLICE STATE:

The classification of a country or regime as a police state is usually contested and debated. Because of the pejorative connotation of the term, it is rare that a country will identify itself as a police state. The classification is often established by an internal whistleblower or an external critic or activist group. The use of the term is motivated as a response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's concept of the social contract, human rights, and similar matters.

Genuine police states are fundamentally authoritarian, and are often dictatorships. However the degree of government repression varies widely among societies. Most regimes fall into some middle ground between the extremes of pure civil libertarianism and pure police statism.


I am not worried about the fear of a police state if cops are given another type of gun. This is not going to tip the scale. It only balances things with the bad guys being better armed.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
I don't think that seeing the miltarizing of our civilian police force as being a slippery slope to violating posse comitatus as even slightly humorous or as "spin". Given the degree to which some department are now armed we are reaching a point where all levels of gov't essentially have their own military. It should scare the hell out of people to think that their county and city essentially have their own standing military. By historic standards of military small arms firepower, many American police depts are better armed on that level than many countries. Hell, give the LA County/City PD some artillary and they are pretty much as well or better armed as most latin American nations. And yeah, I have a problem with that.

In response to an utter failure at every level of gov't to protect the citizens, protect the borders, prevent crime and actually enforce the laws against criminals instead of LACs who just made an unintentional mistake, LE thinks the answer is to better arm the enforcement arm of those failed levels of gov't. :shock: That is, in even an only marginally rational world, utterly retarded!! You don't further arm people or a gov't which has already proven it's utter inability to make good decisions. On top of all that, it IS essentially an end-run around posse comitatus so while perhaps not a violation by letter of law, it is certainly a violation of the spirit of the law, something LEOs (at least where I have lived) regularly arrest people for doing.

Does anyone think that when the Posse Comitatus Act was passed that if the feds had pulled out the troops as required, and then brought in an administrator to give federal grants to the local political body, which in turn proceeded to hire hundreds of the recently evacuated, now honorably discharged, troops as LEOs, and then armed them almost exactly as they had been armed a month earlier when they were soldiers, that it would have been considered A-OK with everyone? Heck no!!

Hiring a bunch of ex-US miltary, arming them nearly the same as when they were US military using money from the same federal gov't that trained them in the military, and making them co-ordinate with the feds in the name of homeland security, pretty much creates a "civilian" standing military calling itself LE. That is EXACTLY the kind of BS the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prevent. The lack of artillary and the fact that LE doesn't get their checks direct from the US Treasury in NO WAY changes what LE is becoming in many places.

For the record, I do NOT blame the average LEO on the street for any of this. This is all taking place at higher levels. Most LEOs probably aren't even thinking about any of it in those terms. But trying to argue that this is all A-OK is preposterous! Firepower is NOT a substitute for good fundamental police work, but in many urban areas it is used that way.
How do some of you even sleep at night? You have the wildest dreams.. I swear! :lol:

If the government was gearing to operate in the states they would have issued guns and what not a long time ago to local departments for free. Rifles are being purchasedby departments and are not free. Local governments are paying for them and only in response to bad guys being better armed.

As I said already.... having a rifle does not tip the scale for the federal government to take control and use the police to do what they command. They are now needed because the bad guys are exploiting this vulnerability they know the police have.

"Firepower is NOT a substitute for good fundamental police work, but in many urban areas it is used that way."

What!!! How does good police work stop two bad guys with full auto AK-47 machine guns and full body armor??? Pistols and shot guns did nothing! I guess good police work would be let the bad guys keep shooting and when they run out you can capture them alive.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
How does it detract from the discussion? It is public info pertinent to the people and question. I note that you quoted it.

Why Doug? You just do not like me giving my point of view... do you?! You have some serious issues and need to get over it. If have something worthwhile to add to our discussion.. then post.

Otherwise....

60717-law-enforcement.gif


Move along now.... nothing here to see...
 

smccomas

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
235
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Leo229 said: "Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding"

Yes, declare national state of emergency, then the feds will "Cordinate with local law enforcement".

Not much to it really.
 

smccomas

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
235
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
How does it detract from the discussion? It is public info pertinent to the people and question. I note that you quoted it.
you are correct it doesnt detract really, seemed odd place to put already public information. sort of like me doing a screen shot from bigyellow.com for a pizza joint.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

smccomas wrote:
Leo229 said: "Do you believe the federal government has some type of control to assemble and control local police departments to do their bidding"

Yes, declare national state of emergency, then the feds will "Cordinate with local law enforcement".

Not much to it really.

The federal government had no "control" over any of the departments. The departments may have been asked to help and agreedto doso. They can refuse if they like.

The local government paying for the services being rendered can also prohibit them from doing it as well.We all know that the local government is filled with elected people making decisions for the community.
 
Top