• 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.

Demilitarization of police could be a new reality

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
When SHTF ... you know where to get equipment ... militarizing police? They cannot keep the equipment from people who want to get it ... they'll run away to hide under their beds.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
On several forums I visit I'm hearing calls to disarm the police.

They need to reduce the reasons for calling them in (getting rid of: no-knocks, drugwar, quotas, mimicking the military, joining in on military training, upping their tactics (ABC armed agents)).
 

NAVYBLUE

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2011
Messages
109
Location
Peoples Republic of North Las Vegas
As a 28 year NAVY veteran, I resent the ones going around with "Homeland Security" on their backs. I am homeland security, not some LEO platoon sergeant wannabe. I and my fellow veterans were trained in "securing" the homeland. Leave the the national's security to the grown ups.

The LEO's job is to protect and serve, not to don flak jackets and ride around in an armored vehicle with a 50 cal like he is Patton taking Germany. I want them arresting the bad guys, not acting like an eviction notice requires an armored troop carrier and automatic weapons.

Since 9/11, our glorious leaders have begin to think law abiding Americans are more dangerous to " homeland security" than the hordes coming across the borders.

It has to stop and we all need to let them know it.

NAVYBLUE
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,295
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
Navyblue, I agree on almost everything you've said, but one point that America needs to be clear on. If is not the job of Law Enforcement to protect. Their job is simple. Investigate crimes, arrest offenders and to assist prosecutors in obtaining convictions. I say this because our protection is our responsibility first. If law enforcement can assist, we accept. But we can not do as we have done for the past forty years, and that is to rely solely on law enforcement for protection. In a crisis, people need to first protect themselves, then when their safety is reasonably secured, contact law enforcement.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Navyblue, I agree on almost everything you've said, but one point that America needs to be clear on. If is not the job of Law Enforcement to protect. Their job is simple. Investigate crimes, arrest offenders and to assist prosecutors in obtaining convictions. I say this because our protection is our responsibility first. If law enforcement can assist, we accept. But we can not do as we have done for the past forty years, and that is to rely solely on law enforcement for protection. In a crisis, people need to first protect themselves, then when their safety is reasonably secured, contact law enforcement.

Indeed. The reliance on police is part and parcel of the (stated, or unstated) "law and order" mentality. And this mentality is, at the very least, a sine qua non for the militarization of police.


  • Don't like your neighbor's loud music? Call the police!
  • Smell pot smoke in your neighborhood? Call the police!
  • You get in a scuffle? Call the police!
  • Worried about home safety? Call the police!
  • Worried about gun violence and drug use? More laws and more police (gun control, drug prohibition) can solve that, too!


Well, with such a vast mandate, it's no wonder that "law enforcement" is a major facet of American life, consuming millions of lives and billions of dollars, and distorting every action we take and thus the very fabric of our liberty.

I say, screw that. The job of police is to investigate crime (you know, the kind with tangible victims), and catch actual criminals. The rest of us should do our best to live and let live, stand our ground where we must, and involve the law as last resort.
 

Custodian

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Messages
283
Location
The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
Protect and serve? Really?

The LEO's job is to protect and serve....NAVYBLUE

Since they have no duty to protect, per numerous SCOTUS decisions, and they don't really serve anyone except the government, LE, as a whole, needs to adopt a new slogan.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yVL4BuimpE8/T0JvHJuyNvI/AAAAAAAAAnk/t4TmvWVpru8/s400/transformer+cop.jpg

Maybe that's too harsh.

Or maybe, now, the average law enforcer, whom they have their entire life tied up in becoming a peace officer, once they found the reality was not what they thought it was (like me) find it hard to get out of such a career path that has few other alternatives, without retraining and reeducating completely.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FESd4AqsYB8/T0JvMH8VvMI/AAAAAAAAAns/Rer4Ib5pI2I/s640/cops+comming+out.jpg
 

garand_guy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
493
Location
Nevada
Or maybe, now, the average law enforcer, whom they have their entire life tied up in becoming a peace officer, once they found the reality was not what they thought it was (like me) find it hard to get out of such a career path that has few other alternatives, without retraining and reeducating completely.
[/url]

Agreed.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
In a land, far far away, I was a deputy sheriff. I was not able to protect anybody.

Now, in my dealings with law enforcement, they take a report and do nothing else. Again there is no protection offered or given.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,295
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
I'm sure every cop would love to have a list a mile long of the crimes they have prevented to put on their resume, it is simply impossible for them to respond in a timely fashion to do so.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
In a land, far far away, I was a deputy sheriff. I was not able to protect anybody.

Now, in my dealings with law enforcement, they take a report and do nothing else. Again there is no protection offered or given.

Just because you failed doesn't mean everyone else does.

While I agree majority is report taking that does not equate to "no protection offered or given". If that was your motto then sucks to be the residence of that town.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,925
Location
North Carolina
In a land, far far away, I was a deputy sheriff. I was not able to protect anybody.

Now, in my dealings with law enforcement, they take a report and do nothing else. Again there is no protection offered or given.

Occasionally a cop gets lucky but that is far from the norm no matter how much the statists claim it is. And luck is all it is, that luck can be increased by trying to be in high crime areas, but the high crime areas are statist controlled causing the problem in the first place.

People who count on police to protect them are potential victims. Police that claim they are protecting them are liars.
 

DON`T TREAD ON ME

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
1,233
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
The Police are distinctly aware of their shortcomings, It is visible in their "Bait car" stings, Hooker stings, jaywalking stings, where they manufacture criminals out of people otherwise doing something else. In our state (will provide cite if requested) it is illegal to leave the keys in a car unattended... The cops break the law to catch lawbreakers. It is laughable.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
...
I say, screw that. The job of police is to investigate crime (you know, the kind with tangible victims), and catch actual criminals. The rest of us should do our best to live and let live, stand our ground where we must, and involve the law as last resort.

Marshaul, did you know that the precursor to Scotland Yard (the MET) was formed in 1829 but did NOT have the "legal" ability to investigate crime? The citizens were so worried about the "police" being used negatively against them, they set it up like this to be low key and acceptable. (saw it on a docu about Scotland Yard).

After a short while they did create a secret arm that would investigate crime, and then later the whole department was arrested for being complicit in crime (a danger for all LE, imo, because being so close to crime, learning to understand and even mimic criminals, LE starts to become like them).
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
...The cops break the law to catch lawbreakers. It is laughable.
Or, do they have special administrative permission to "violate" the law because their intentions are noble?

Remember, cops in many states are exempt from many "minor laws," mostly traffic, because they "breaking" them would hinder the proper performance of their duties. Like cell phone use, laptop computer use, all while driving.

At the very least, when confronted with their violation, they may claim the "LEO exemption" whether it can be legitimately claimed or not.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
Marshaul, did you know that the precursor to Scotland Yard (the MET) was formed in 1829 but did NOT have the "legal" ability to investigate crime? The citizens were so worried about the "police" being used negatively against them, they set it up like this to be low key and acceptable. (saw it on a docu about Scotland Yard).

Can't say I did know that. What were they used for, then? Foot patrols?
 

Levi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
188
Location
Tacoma
I have been thinking carefully about how to craft a response to this topic.

I don't feel that the gear that the police have, from M-16s to Apache Longbow attach helicopters, matters all that much. Indeed, if my next door neighbor drives an M1A2 Abrams with live ammo for it's turret I wouldn't be bothered. As long as they want the gear, I don't have an issue.

Their behavior matters a lot. I bothers me that LEOs come across more as an occupation force than a member of the community. They should have the same kind of relationship with the populous that fire departments have. I am uncomfortable around police because of so many bad contacts so many people have with them. That is truly horrifying.

As a segment of society, they seem to more and more isolate themselves from the rest of us. Even in smaller communities, it's rare for people to know their local officers.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I have been thinking carefully about how to craft a response to this topic.

I don't feel that the gear that the police have, from M-16s to Apache Longbow attach helicopters, matters all that much. Indeed, if my next door neighbor drives an M1A2 Abrams with live ammo for it's turret I wouldn't be bothered. As long as they want the gear, I don't have an issue.

The difference is your neighbor has to spend his own money to uselessly fly his helicopter repeatedly over your sub-suburban home. The police get to spend your money to do that.

(Speak of the devil! Right as I wrote that the local PD uselessly flew a helicopter below the civilian floor over my house, disrupting my quiet enjoyment of my own property for "important" police [strike]money-wasting[/strike] business... What a bunch of self-important, inconsiderate scumbags. They should all be fired and their helicopters auctioned off.)

Anyway, I truly don't see how you can cleanly and conveniently separate attitudes, budgets, and yes, equipment when the changes in all of the above are part and parcel of an explicit and intentional militarization of police in the name of fighting various "Wars".

Are you aware of the extent to which the Federal government provides free equipment (but no maintenance costs for the same), thus incentivizing departments around the country to increasingly engage in unconstitutional asset forfeiture practices, and to call out the SWAT routinely and needlessly for the sole purpose of justifying its existence on paper (and because the officers find it "better than sex")?

The reality is that police don't need this equipment, and their desires ("as long as they want the gear...") are irrelevant; only the desires of their employers - the citizenry - ought to be of any concern.
 
Last edited:
Top