marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
I think the problem, though, is that in practice the clothes have a whole lot to do with the attitude (militaristic is how you initially defined it, and I'm inclined to agree, although I don't have the firsthand experience of coconut here). And the attitude does have a lot to do with why police have become so out of control. Self-evidently, I would think.
For example, while there's nothing unreasonable about wearing body armor to a high likelihood of a gunfight, or as well bringing a rifle or a submachine gun, much of it has nothing to do with bodily self-defense. Wearing balaclavas to instill doubt and fear into what can only be described as their enemy ("bad guy" is an almost-euphamism)? Seriously, that's not how any citizen not yet convicted of a crime ought to ever be treated.
Also, consider the Federal aspect. Where do the cops get all these neat toys from (tacticool gear and guns I'm not allowed to own)? The Federal government has no shortage of programs designed to hook local PDs and SDs up with military-style gear and training, which is where they get the idea to unconstitutionally raid Ryan Frederick's house, get one of their own tragically killed in a patently legitimate act of self-defense, and then go whining about it all the way to the innocent American's sentencing hearing. It's not like the PDs woke up one way and said "you know what we really need to budget for today, is new assault rifles and complete combat body armor rigs for every officer!", and then woke up another day and said "and today we need to assault our victims using shock tactics!". No, these things were installed into them "in one fell swoop" using Federal money, hand-in-hand, part of a package deal designed to circumvent Posse Comitatus Act.
I guess my point is just that I don't think very many cops would actually want to dress that way and/or behave that way if they weren't inculcated with this pseudo/proto-military attitude (no offense to coconut, who apparently does like to do the whole battle rattle thing).
Should we ban tacticool helmets and armor for cops? I don't see why; I'm more interested in putting a leash on their use of weapons in low-risk encounters.
But the tacticool gear goes hand in hand with the actual tactics that are being employed, which do need to be stopped. Those tactics range from no-knock raids to acoustic area-effect weapons, none of which is an acceptable way to treat free, innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens.
bigtoe416 wrote:
I agree with you in theory, as my standard for deciding right and wrong is based on the Non-aggression Principle, and wearing combat garb does not in and of itself constitute an act of aggression.
I think the problem, though, is that in practice the clothes have a whole lot to do with the attitude (militaristic is how you initially defined it, and I'm inclined to agree, although I don't have the firsthand experience of coconut here). And the attitude does have a lot to do with why police have become so out of control. Self-evidently, I would think.
For example, while there's nothing unreasonable about wearing body armor to a high likelihood of a gunfight, or as well bringing a rifle or a submachine gun, much of it has nothing to do with bodily self-defense. Wearing balaclavas to instill doubt and fear into what can only be described as their enemy ("bad guy" is an almost-euphamism)? Seriously, that's not how any citizen not yet convicted of a crime ought to ever be treated.
Also, consider the Federal aspect. Where do the cops get all these neat toys from (tacticool gear and guns I'm not allowed to own)? The Federal government has no shortage of programs designed to hook local PDs and SDs up with military-style gear and training, which is where they get the idea to unconstitutionally raid Ryan Frederick's house, get one of their own tragically killed in a patently legitimate act of self-defense, and then go whining about it all the way to the innocent American's sentencing hearing. It's not like the PDs woke up one way and said "you know what we really need to budget for today, is new assault rifles and complete combat body armor rigs for every officer!", and then woke up another day and said "and today we need to assault our victims using shock tactics!". No, these things were installed into them "in one fell swoop" using Federal money, hand-in-hand, part of a package deal designed to circumvent Posse Comitatus Act.
I guess my point is just that I don't think very many cops would actually want to dress that way and/or behave that way if they weren't inculcated with this pseudo/proto-military attitude (no offense to coconut, who apparently does like to do the whole battle rattle thing).
Should we ban tacticool helmets and armor for cops? I don't see why; I'm more interested in putting a leash on their use of weapons in low-risk encounters.
But the tacticool gear goes hand in hand with the actual tactics that are being employed, which do need to be stopped. Those tactics range from no-knock raids to acoustic area-effect weapons, none of which is an acceptable way to treat free, innocent-until-proven-guilty citizens.
