Militarized Police Departments

[Fulcanelli]

After seeing some of the new toys the nation's police departments have been receiving, used in the recent unrest in Furgeson MO, I'm wondering what sort of gear the Detroit police have in storage? And also the outlying suburbs?

[SyGolden48236]

The criminals have much more sophisticated firepower today than in years past. You have gangbangers cruising the killing fields of Detroit with assault rifles carjacking people and shooting innocent kids.

Something needs to be done to keep the criminals in check. I have no problem with the police having military grade weapons.

[Dan Wesson]

If you have been following the conditions that congress has laid out in creating this mess you will find that in order for the LEO's to keep fully automated weapons and gear they must use it within a year, if not it must be returned. Now you got fully weaponized teams serving things like simple warrants dressed in full military garb and loaded for full military response against civilians.

Also the freindly neighborhood policeman is now being trained in Israeli Defense Force Tactics like those used against the Palestinians.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...t-web-rel1.pdf

[SyGolden48236]

If you have been following the conditions that congress has laid out in creating this mess you will find that in order for the LEO's to keep fully automated weapons and gear they must use it within a year, if not it must be returned. Now you got fully weaponized teams serving things like simple warrants dressed in full military garb.

Also the freindly neighborhood policeman is now being trained in Israeli Defense Force Tactics like those used against the Palestinians.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...t-web-rel1.pdf

Sometimes this is necessary in Detroit and many other big cities. You cannot let the criminals take control. The criminal element must not be better armed than the police.

[Hermod]

As Sy noted, years ago the .38 or .357 revolver [[with shotgun backup) was adequate for the police to deal with crooks armed with .22 and .32 "Saturday Night Specials". Now the crooks are using AR-15 semiautomatics and 12 gauge multiround shotguns as well as very high power pistols.

[313WX]

I bet the folks who think the police are being militarized only to fight against criminals must enjoy that Kool-Aid they're drinking...

[SyGolden48236]

I bet the folks who think the police are being militarized only to fight against criminals must enjoy that Kool-Aid they're drinking...

Paranoid much?

[313WX]

Paranoid much?

Conspiracy theories aside, if you consider the facts in front of us, it's easy to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

The crime rate in America is at its lowest in decades. Yet the police managed to handle the crime problems just fine in the past, which were much greater, without being nearly as militarized as they are now.

That said, we are on the cusp of a major economic collapse with tons of innocent, armed citizens who will have to be subdued as they react in fear to the catastrophic events that will ensue [[see the NDAA just signed into law). Obviously the US military won't have the manpower and resources able to subdue these people alone, so they're going to enlist the help of local police departments which is why they're being militarized.

[Jimaz]

... Obviously the US military won't have the manpower and resources able to subdue these people alone, so they're going to enlist the help of local police departments which is why they're being militarized.

Isn't it still illegal [[unconstitutional, I think) for the military to police U.S. civilians? Or has that protection been revoked too? It used to be that everyone took that restriction very, very seriously.

---

Maybe seven? years ago there was a suicide case in Shelby Township. I just happened to spot a convoy of police vehicles headed to the scene. One of them was an armored personnel carrier. It was totally unnecessary. The guy died anyway. Sad.

As far as paranoia goes, I'd be more concerned about paranoid police. That's when things can really go wrong fast.

[313WX]

Isn't it still illegal [[unconstitutional, I think) for the military to police U.S. civilians? Or has that protection been revoked too? It used to be that everyone took that restriction very, very seriously.

---

Maybe seven? years ago there was a suicide case in Shelby Township. I just happened to spot a convoy of police vehicles headed to the scene. One of them was an armored personnel carrier. It was totally unnecessary. The guy died anyway. Sad.

As far as paranoia goes, I'd be more concerned about paranoid police. That's when things can really go wrong fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...scal_Year_2012

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention were contained in subsections 1021–1022 of Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism", authorizing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil. Although the White House

^[12] and Senate sponsors^[13] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force [[AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.^[14][15] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union [[ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.^{[16][17][18][19][20]} The detention powers currently facelegal challenge.

At the end of the day, if an officer is instructed by a chier commander to harm you/your family or risk losing their means to support themselves/their own family [[their job as an officer), what do you think that officer's going to do?

[Wesley Mouch]

Conspiracy theories aside, if you consider the facts in front of us, it's easy to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

The crime rate in America is at its lowest in decades. Yet the police managed to handle the crime problems just fine in the past, which were much greater, without being nearly as militarized as they are now.

That said, we are on the cusp of a major economic collapse with tons of innocent, armed citizens who will have to be subdued as they react in fear to the catastrophic events that will ensue [[see the NDAA just signed into law). Obviously the US military won't have the manpower and resources able to subdue these people alone, so they're going to enlist the help of local police departments which is why they're being militarized.

You're ignoring the possible correction between low crime rate and the militarization of the police. I don't think this is the case, but it makes more sense than your argument that a low crime rate suggests no need for sophisticated equipment.

It will be interesting to see what happens in NYC. There as great success in crime reduction during an era where broken windows reigned. Now we're going to try out dispassionate policing, where the police find it best to avoid conflict at any cost -- lest they be branded as using disproportionate force. Time will tell us how the crime rate and squeegemen respond.

[Hermod]

I bet the folks who think the police are being militarized only to fight against criminals must enjoy that Kool-Aid they're drinking...

Yes, they are getting readyt to combat "la revolucion" when all of the arts, music, and culture crowd will rise up against Wall Street tyranny and the militarized police will subdue them and move them into the FEMA labor camps that Haliburton has been building the last fifteen years.

[SyGolden48236]

Yes, they are getting readyt to combat "la revolucion" when all of the arts, music, and culture crowd will rise up against Wall Street tyranny and the militarized police will subdue them and move them into the FEMA labor camps that Haliburton has been building the last fifteen years.

And that is the main reason that B. Hussein Obama did not close Gitmo down as he said he would. He is keeping it open so he can send all the hipsters there when this Occupy bullcrap gets out of hand.

[nain rouge]

I think it's over the top to say that we're heading for an economic collapse. It's possible, sure, but very unlikely. I've seen to many predictions fall short to believe in that. There's too much incentive for everyone involved to find a way to at least keep the economy semi-functioning. People will panic if their living standard drops tremendously overnight, but if you spread it out over 50 years, they lose perspective and accept it.

I do believe we have a case in America where those with power are hellbent on never relinquishing it. They want to rig the game to stay on top, even if that's bad news for the average person. Militarized police are part of wider "chilling effect" to keep people afraid of questioning what's going on too openly.

The government already tries to give us the impression that everything that happens on the internet is collected and monitored. It's awful. The way it's phrased is: "Look, we don't care what you're doing on your smart phone. You're just an average Joe or Jane trying to live your life. But we do collect information to protect the country's interest, and what you're doing may get caught in the nets we cast. Don't worry. We could care less with what regular people are doing." The implication, of course, is that you'd better stay regular.

[davewindsor]

I think it's over the top to say that we're heading for an economic collapse. It's possible, sure, but very unlikely.

Um, the US debt is $17 trillion and growing by $4 billion a day. http://www.politifact.com/georgia/st...-debt-problem/

I don't know how you can say the country is very unlikely headed for economic collapse. Just the opposite.

[night-timer]

Yes, they are getting readyt to combat "la revolucion" when all of the arts, music, and culture crowd will rise up against Wall Street tyranny and the militarized police will subdue them and move them into the FEMA labor camps that Haliburton has been building the last fifteen years.

They're only coming to round you up if you think you're important enough to matter to them.

[JBMcB]

They're only coming to round you up if you think you're important enough to matter to them.

The main problem is the local police departments often use military hardware on pretty much everyone. There are stories of SWAT teams raiding the homes of deadbeat dads, small-time pot offenders, probation offenders - pretty much anyone. Add on to that the fact they sometimes get the address wrong compounds the issue.

This is one of the worst examples I've seen:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/1151...r-old-man-bed/

I'd be more lenient towards police having heavy military hardware if they didn't screw up quite so often. If they didn't try to cover up their screw-ups. And, if after being found out that they covered up their screw-up, they were actually punished in some fashion. As it stands, unless there is a massive nationwide outcry and the stars align just right, a police officer can pretty much kill anyone for any reason and nothing will happen to them.

[Wesley Mouch]

The main problem is the local police departments often use military hardware on pretty much everyone. There are stories of SWAT teams raiding the homes of deadbeat dads, small-time pot offenders, probation offenders - pretty much anyone. Add on to that the fact they sometimes get the address wrong compounds the issue.

This is one of the worst examples I've seen:
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/1151...r-old-man-bed/

I'd be more lenient towards police having heavy military hardware if they didn't screw up quite so often. If they didn't try to cover up their screw-ups. And, if after being found out that they covered up their screw-up, they were actually punished in some fashion. As it stands, unless there is a massive nationwide outcry and the stars align just right, a police officer can pretty much kill anyone for any reason and nothing will happen to them.

Police work 24/7/365 to protect you from criminals. There are occasional high-profile failures. Is the appropriate to eliminate SWAT teams?

[davewindsor]

The main problem is the local police departments often use military hardware on pretty much everyone. There are stories of SWAT teams raiding the homes of deadbeat dads, small-time pot offenders, probation offenders - pretty much anyone. ...

There's probably more to the story if they are sending out SWAT teams instead of regular officers to raid the home of a deadbeat dad, etc. Are telling me it's impossible that those suspects would ever be armed and barricaded inside with a machine gun? If the situation is too dangerous and there's a tip that the suspect is armed, you have to send in better equipped SWAT. I'm pretty sure the police union requires it for the safety of the officers.

There is a procedure here that's "supposed" to be followed. For example: The judge gives an officer a warrant. The officer shows up to the address with a warrant to pick up a deadbeat dad, etc. Neighbor comes out and tells the officer that he saw the suspect through the living room window with a machine gun. Officer calls his Staff Sargent. Staff Sargent tells the officer to wait at the scene and calls SWAT.

There's "supposed" to be a number of people involved here before raiding a home.

[animatedmartian]

Militarized police make sense when they know where the bad guys are and can get the jump on them. But it doesn't seem practical in daily use. Unless we do want a military state.

[Dan Wesson]

Beware the police/military industrial complex. Follow the money to and through Congress.

[ABetterDetroit]

How about we don't riot and then the police should only use the military gear on barricaded gunmen, armed criminal gangs or terrorist attacks. I think that could work ok. Riots are a bad thing that can destroy whole nieboorhoods overnight and leave a crime ridden wasteland for years. Rock chucking, firebombing and looting are not a protest, just a crime wave of epic proportions with long term awful effects.

[animatedmartian]

How about we don't riot and then the police should only use the military gear on barricaded gunmen, armed criminal gangs or terrorist attacks. I think that could work ok. Riots are a bad thing that can destroy whole nieboorhoods overnight and leave a crime ridden wasteland for years. Rock chucking, firebombing and looting are not a protest, just a crime wave of epic proportions with long term awful effects.

Did Ferguson even really need military police for the riots? There were few firebombs and shootings. At most I only read of maybe a handful of people being arrested with handguns on them during the whole event. And typically, places were riots occur already had crime growing there to begin with. I have yet to see evidence of riots actually creating long-term crime effects that weren't already present in an area.

[nain rouge]

Um, the US debt is $17 trillion and growing by $4 billion a day.

Debt-to-GDP percentage is far more meaningful than a raw number. And that percentage has been much higher before. The US took on a ton of debt during World War II and it took awhile to bring the debt back within reason.

Granted, the US is racking up a lot of debt currently, and though the country has been involved in several wars, we can all agree that it hasn't been at all comparable to World War II. Now is that enough evidence to say we're heading for collapse?

Not quite. Japan has carried WAY more debt than the US for a long time relative to GDP and is doing OK. Greece and Italy, however, have taken big hits from somewhat similar debt levels to Japan. It all depends on what you can leverage against the debt, and for now the US has a lot to leverage with. Even in a worst case scenario, I don't think what could happen in the US would be any worse than Greece and Italy, both of which never came close to a total collapse of any sort. Just protests and lean times.

[ABetterDetroit]

Debt-to-GDP percentage is far more meaningful than a raw number. And that percentage has been much higher before. The US took on a ton of debt during World War II and it took awhile to bring the debt back within reason.

Granted, the US is racking up a lot of debt currently, and though the country has been involved in several wars, we can all agree that it hasn't been at all comparable to World War II. Now is that enough evidence to say we're heading for collapse?

Not quite. Japan has carried WAY more debt than the US for a long time relative to GDP and is doing OK. Greece and Italy, however, have taken big hits from somewhat similar debt levels to Japan. It all depends on what you can leverage against the debt, and for now the US has a lot to leverage with. Even in a worst case scenario, I don't think what could happen in the US would be any worse than Greece and Italy, both of which never came close to a total collapse of any sort. Just protests and lean times.

Well stated. When I argue with "doomsayers" I always ask 3 questions.
Who sets the interest rate? US federal reserve
What other currency is doing well and even comes anywhere close to being the world standard for trade? None. Euro has already been on the brink of failure, Chinese Yuan? Your kidding right? The US dollar is THE ONLY GAME on planet earth.
What about the 3.5 trillion annual income of US government? Huge some of money largest pot of cash on earth by a long margin bigger than the total GNP of all but the 3 largest economies in the world. That kind of income gives anyone nothing but a huge borrowing potential. Most "doomsayers" I find just want it to happen so bad because they hate the US government so much [[ ain't freedom great ) and deny all the appropriate facts.