TexasCHLforum.com

Is it time to reconsider the militarization of American policing?

Since the 1960s, in response to a range of perceived threats, law-enforcement agencies across the U.S., at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.

This is what some of us, even strong supporters of LEOs, worry about. The escalation of military-style tactics across departments points to bad days ahead for everyone. And in a country armed to the teeth with law abiding citizens, it's a wonder there haven't been more fatal mistakes than there are.

I read that this morning. It is troubling. Seems that articles about this sort of thing are on the rise. If you plan to force your way into someone's home to get evidence, why not serve them in public somewhere? Then go search the home. Obviously there might be cases where SWAT raid would be needed, but that should be invoked rarely for known highly armed persons that would be likely to put up heavy resistance. Just seems like more homework, stake out, due diligence could be done.

A number of federal agencies also now have their own SWAT teams, including the Fish & Wildlife Service, NASA and the Department of the Interior. In 2011, the Department of Education's SWAT team bungled a raid on a woman who was initially reported to be under investigation for not paying her student loans, though the agency later said she was suspected of defrauding the federal student loan program.

This is insanity. You need a swat team for someone who is delinquent in her student loans? Seriously? Fish & Wildlife Service needs a SWAT team????? NASA??? Insanity.

NASA obviously needs a SWAT team in case of alien hitchhikers, not sure why anyone else does.

Fangs wrote:NASA obviously needs a SWAT team in case of alien hitchhikers, not sure why anyone else does.

You never know when those rocket scientists are going to get all crazy and drink a Red Bull or something. Slide Rule Riot!

Y'all should each serve a few high risk felony warrants then decide how much "militarization" you'd like to have the next time you breech a doorway.

A-R wrote:Y'all should each serve a few high risk felony warrants then decide how much "militarization" you'd like to have the next time you breech a doorway.

It is not the high risk correct addresses that we object too so much as the wrong address breaches that have become so prevalent.

There is no doubt in my mind today that my house is NOT secure from no knock, wrong address, hard entry, & I have nothing at all more than a traffic violation the worst of which was as a teen ager 74 in a 55. That was 45yrs ago.

That is a valid complaint.
LT

A-R wrote:Y'all should each serve a few high risk felony warrants then decide how much "militarization" you'd like to have the next time you breech a doorway.

SWAT teams/ SRT Units, etc.... didn't even exist in most places 25 years ago, and yet they managed to get the job done. Now, every department and agency wants to have one, just because everybody else does. IF they were truly utilized only for high risk situations I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them, but that's not the case. Once a department has a SWAT team...and the van...and all the equipment to go with it, they are much more likely to start viewing situations as "high risk"...ones that they wouldn't have before. It's just human nature...you have a new toy, or tool, or gun, or whatever... you want to use it. On top of that, if it doesn't get used, it's kinda' hard to keep justifying the expense in the budget. The example of the girl that was raided by the D.O.E. SWAT team is extreme, but makes the point very well. I suspect they came up with the statement that she was suspected of defrauding the student loan program, rather than just being delinquent on her loans, only after the botched raid was made public... but even if she was, how can you perceive that as a "high risk" situation that would justify the need for a SWAT team raid?

I'd love to see someone justify a FIsh & Wildlife SWAT event. Fisherman in the creek with no license? Surround him with 15 armed officers and take him down hard! You never know. He might have a fillet knife.

Look, I'm pro LEO. I believe in them. But it's really hard to buy that you need to do door breaches with 30 plus officers while hunting a fugitive who isn't even known to be armed. At a minimum you ought to have a reasonable belief that he's actually in the place you're attacking. I mean, you've got the residence completely surrounded. No way is anyone getting out of there without you knowing it. Knock on the door, announce yourself and ask if you can come in. Tell them why you're there. The bad guy isn't going to get away if he's there.

longtooth wrote:

A-R wrote:Y'all should each serve a few high risk felony warrants then decide how much "militarization" you'd like to have the next time you breech a doorway.

It is not the high risk correct addresses that we object too so much as the wrong address breaches that have become so prevalent.

There is no doubt in my mind today that my house is NOT secure from no knock, wrong address, hard entry, & I have nothing at all more than a traffic violation the worst of which was as a teen ager 74 in a 55. That was 45yrs ago.

That is a valid complaint.
LT

This. You may have legal recourse (depending how whether the local judges actually hold LE accountable for screwups), but when the door's getting knocked in, the knowledge you'll win your civil suit down the road is small comfort.

My biggest complaint about "militarization" of the cops is that we/they get to play with all kinds of toys not available to "the average citizen." Given that we ARE legally civilians, and not subject to the USCMJ, there should not be any difference between what we're "allowed" to carry/own, and what a non-LEO can carry or own. Granted, I like that my department has fully automatic rifles. They're fun, and if I ever need the happy switch (extremely unlikely), it's there. But if I cannot own one as a citizen, there's not really any justification for me to be issued one. Strike that, and flip it. If there's nothing wrong with a civilian carrying a full-auto in the course of his job, then there should be nothing wrong with him owning one at home. If I don't have to do paperwork to check out an M-4 at work, I shouldn't have to do any paperwork to buy one, just fork over the cash.

Short version, it's not the militarization of the police that truly bugs me. It's the denial of the same to non-police, rendering cops as a separate class of "super-citizen," with more rank and privilege than the people we ostensibly support, are governed by, and who pay our salaries.

Once upon a time, police work was done in an entirely different manner than it is now conducted, for better AND for worse. We will never again see the days of "one riot, one Ranger".

I would argue that the LA bank robbery had a greater influence than any of the other reasons listed...


But I had a good chuckle at bayonets.... I'm sure someone will go immediately to google to show how valid that point is and that I shouldn't laugh but I am...

A lot of it is because of Federal funding for specialized equipment. If you want the money, you have to equip. If you want the money to keep coming, you have to justify it which requires use. That's where you get the S.W.A.T. raids on bad check writers.

Sitting comfortably under my foil EMP resistant headgear, I see the Federal push to equip even the smaller departments as a means to establish a de facto army. If your benefactor says mobilize, your likely to do it.

I'm curious, have there been any cases, anywhere in the us, where a homeowner shot and injured or killed a LEO who was executing a no-knock on the wrong house?

RottenApple wrote:I'm curious, have there been any cases, anywhere in the us, where a homeowner shot and injured or killed a LEO who was executing a no-knock on the wrong house?

Says so in the article:

The police say that they knocked and identified themselves, though Mr. Stewart and his neighbors said they heard no such announcement. Mr. Stewart fired 31 rounds, the police more than 250. Six of the officers were wounded, and Officer Jared Francom was killed. Mr. Stewart himself was shot twice before he was arrested. He was charged with several crimes, including the murder of Officer Francom.

I'm surprised he survived the 250-round assault with only 2 hits.

EDIT TO ADD: Oh, you said "wrong house". My bad.