It's not having the gear that is bad, it's the way some are using it. One of the local PDs got one of those 600 MRAPs, and haven't used it to raid one barbershop yet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You think you can give them a toy THAT cool and then expect them not to play with it?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that you are in essence sending them a message that they NEED this stuff by giving it to them. "Be afraid. Be very afraid. One day you will be shot by the Enemy, then you will need body armour. Or do you want your children to grow up with a single parent?" And so on. When wearing all this gear, of course, you take more risks, which actually make things worse. Not to mention it leads to an arms race. If the people who want to take out police officers need military weapons to do so, then military weapons is what they will get. When police departments have changed the rules in the other direction, such as having single officers patrolling, violence has gone down, both against others and against the police. Removing the stuff seems like a brilliant idea.
Precisely. Bad idea all around. Nobody would protest if they use it in the storming of a heavily fortified drug villa or the like... But these people are citizens choosing to express their displeasure IN PRECISELY THE WAY THE ESTABLISHMENT WANTS THEM TO. Peaceful assembly is a good deal for the establishment for many reasons... Not the least of which is that the only alternative is armed resistance, militarization, and, possibly, civil war. It behooves everyone involved to be careful before peaceful protests are cracked down on.
In other news, people really need to start suing newspapers and the like for adjusting their reports to the official government line.
Oh, and, take a look at the latest Battlefield game, Battlefield: Hardline for more of the same. Propaganda today takes many forms.
Police officers have been shot long before they were issued bullet proof vests. Are you saying that we shouldn't try to save their lives?
Using this military-grade equipment to check a barber shop on illegal employees is taking it way to far. And I can´t imagine that western Maine is such a terrorist hotbed as to necessitate that kind of equipment - unless one defines terrorism very broadly.
I can see the use of this kind of equipment against serious criminal activity, but then, there should be specialized forces as well, who should be not only trained with this equipment, but also how to handle themselves in situations where the use of violence is not called for. You know, these guys should be the cavalry called in when things go south, not just something every village sheriff has access to.
That said, there has be some discussion over here recently if water cannons and tear gas are something that should be used routinely when dispersing protests. In one instance, an older man lost his eyesight to a water cannon attack that was in all probability way over the top. (You see, he threw a few conkers at the police while they were wearing their full riot gear some time before he was hit by a water cannon from about 40 ft. away - right in his face). If the equipment is there, it will be used even if the situation does not warrant it.
As it is, this equipment is more a tool of oppression than of defending the law.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You only need military equipment if you consider yourself an occupying army and the civilians you are "protecting" an enemy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is appropriate here:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're there to protect public order, not the public.
This is appropriate here:
I was just about to post that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What would really save police lives is if they simply sent out drones with automatic weapons and gunned down all the protesters. Not one policeman would be remotely injured. See now why safety of police officers before taking any other consideration can be a very bad idea?
Policemen and soldiers (and others) have chosen to take jobs that can be quite risky. Nobody is forced to be one. It is, quite literally, part of the job. Certainly, give them what protective gear they NEED. It's ridiculous they would need armored cars, automatic rifles and sniper rifles to deal with a peaceful protest - if so, they are severely incompetent at their job.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's ridiculous they'd need armored cars, automatic rifles and sniper rifles even to deal with looting.What would really save police lives is if they simply sent out drones with automatic weapons and gunned down all the protesters. Not one policeman would be remotely injured. See now why safety of police officers before taking any other consideration can be a very bad idea?
Policemen and soldiers (and others) have chosen to take jobs that can be quite risky. Nobody is forced to be one. It is, quite literally, part of the job. Certainly, give them what protective gear they NEED. It's ridiculous they would need armored cars, automatic rifles and sniper rifles to deal with a peaceful protest - if so, they are severely incompetent at their job.
When you assume that the public is the enemy, then it automatically becomes a war, and therefore you need war machines.
One of the best parts of the John Oliver monologue is the bit where they show the photo of the police officers pointing their automatic rifles at someone with their hands up and then they cut to the interview where you have someone (can't remember name or occupation) indicating that in a war, soldiers only point their weapon when they are in the process of firing them.
They have the toys but they have no clue how to use them properly.
That can only lead to a happy ending...
I suspect that bit's not actually true. Soldiers occasionally take prisoners and I suspect they point guns at them even when not actually shooting. If someone tries to surrender, do soldiers immediately stop covering them, even if he still has weapons close to hand?
It's one of those catch phrases that sounds good and may even be generally true, but certainly isn't a hard and fast rule.
Fair enough, I've never been in the military so if anyone else knows better I'll concede the point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have very little doubt that (the American) Military-Industrial Complex will have enough lobbying strength to keep sending this gear to our local cops.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Fair enough, I've never been in the military so if anyone else knows better I'll concede the point.I suspect that bit's not actually true. Soldiers occasionally take prisoners and I suspect they point guns at them even when not actually shooting. If someone tries to surrender, do soldiers immediately stop covering them, even if he still has weapons close to hand?
It's one of those catch phrases that sounds good and may even be generally true, but certainly isn't a hard and fast rule.
I'm an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran; you can point your weapon at someone in an escalation of force scenario, and you can keep weapons trained on detainees until they're secured, and you probably should.
Aiming a weapon is definitely in the lethal end of the spectrum, however, and is only really warranted when there's the possibility of a lethal threat from the subject. This doesn't preclude the possibility of a lethal threat from an unarmed subject. They might have a weapon you can't see, or they might try to gain control of your weapon. Standard disclaimer, IANAL.
When you assume that the public is the enemy, then it automatically becomes a war, and therefore you need war machines.
The police (excluding state and federal level SWAT teams) should be limited to the same weapons that civilians may purchase. If Podunk County Sheriff's Office gets MRAPs and M-16s, then the average citizen should be able to buy them too. No NFA tax required.
If the politicians and police officers don't like the idea of civilians owning machine guns, rocket launchers and armored cars, they should be willing to go without.
One of the best parts of the John Oliver monologue is the bit where they show the photo of the police officers pointing their automatic rifles at someone with their hands up and then they cut to the interview where you have someone (can't remember name or occupation) indicating that in a war, soldiers only point their weapon when they are in the process of firing them.
They have the toys but they have no clue how to use them properly.
There's four classic rules of gun safety:
1: All guns are always loaded, especially when you think they're not.
2: Never point a gun at something you aren't ready to destroy.
3: Finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot.
4: Be sure of what's around and behind your target, in case you miss.
You could play a drinking game by watching footage of cops handling guns during riots or raids, if you have a cast-iron liver. Take a sip every time you see a rule violation.
Handling a gun is only a part of a cop's job, and a small one at that. That's fine; there's only so many hours in a day and I'd rather have them learn how to defuse a conflict or what the traffic laws are. But a few hours of training does not a SWAT team make.
The best way forward is to remove local SWAT teams and organize them at the state level.
I have very little doubt that (the American) Military-Industrial Complex will have enough lobbying strength to keep sending this gear to our local cops.
Most of the crap flowing to the police is military surplus. A hundred MRAPs could be given out, and General Dynamics won't see a cent.
Fair enough, I've never been in the military so if anyone else knows better I'll concede the point.I suspect that bit's not actually true. Soldiers occasionally take prisoners and I suspect they point guns at them even when not actually shooting. If someone tries to surrender, do soldiers immediately stop covering them, even if he still has weapons close to hand?
It's one of those catch phrases that sounds good and may even be generally true, but certainly isn't a hard and fast rule.
I'm an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran; you can point your weapon at someone in an escalation of force scenario, and you can keep weapons trained on detainees until they're secured, and you probably should.
Aiming a weapon is definitely in the lethal end of the spectrum, however, and is only really warranted when there's the possibility of a lethal threat from the subject. This doesn't preclude the possibility of a lethal threat from an unarmed subject. They might have a weapon you can't see, or they might try to gain control of your weapon. Standard disclaimer, IANAL.
From an uniformed person wanting to know more:
In these cases you are talking about having a specific target and suspect, not a large group of people who are mostly nonviolent, correct? Patroling a street you would not have your weapon up and ready.|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
From an uniformed person wanting to know more:
In these cases you are talking about having a specific target and suspect, not a large group of people who are mostly nonviolent, correct? Patroling a street you would not have your weapon up and ready.
Correct. You'd probably be carrying your weapon at the low ready like this guy.
Violence breeds violence? Wow, that's just so ridiculous. I mean, talk about obviously false!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I think the problem is again linked to the relationship Americans have with weapons and their use.
In Europe we also have riots, madmen, criminals (ranging from street thugs, drug dealers to mafia) and terrorists. Still we don't need to provide police forces with such firepower and immunity like in the US.
At the end without death penalty, with limited prison sentences, with police forces equipped with light weapons we've a significant lower amount of homicides and safer streets and districts. According to the US logic it should be the opposite, so I start thinking that violence breeds only more violence.
I suspect it's more our drug policy. The places in the US that have laxer gun controls tend to have less violent crime; conversely, big metro areas tend to have tighter gun controls but more violent crime. I'm not positing any kind of causation, only correlation; also, this isn't the right thread to talk about gun control. But Europeans tend to see the US's looser gun control as the reason for our violent crime problem, and that's just not likely. I think it's more likely that most of the kind of heavily-armed violent criminals whom law enforcement would need mil-grade weapons to combat are organized narcotraffickers, to include street gangs, the criminal sort of motorcycle clubs, etc.
Giving them better body armor is understandable, but they don't need automatic weapons, tanks, or drones.
What I would not mind is a special SWAT team that might have those, but they are only called in when criminals have such weapons.
AND even then you have to justify the approval of such weapons. You can't go rolling around in a tank, and carrying the automatic rifle just because it is collecting dust. You should be happy it is collecting dust. Until the situation warrants it you get to walk out with standard gear ONLY.
American criminals have easier access to more guns than their european counterparts, so SOME heavier armament by the cops is reasonable.
The tripod mounted machine gun aimed at a bunch of protestors though.. oh hell no.
Violence breeds violence? Wow, that's just so ridiculous. I mean, talk about obviously false!So, what's your explanation?
Europe has Lawful Good criminals and terrorists? Hamburgers makes US criminals more violents? So, why Sissyl? Why with softer police and justice do we get a safer society?
Yes, the criminals of Europe are mostly of the paladin class, and seeing them fall because of goblin babies is not a pretty sight. And yes, nobody in Europe eats hamburgers, ever.
Yes, the criminals of Europe are mostly of the paladin class, and seeing them fall because of goblin babies is not a pretty sight. And yes, nobody in Europe eats hamburgers, ever.Violence breeds violence? Wow, that's just so ridiculous. I mean, talk about obviously false!So, what's your explanation?
Europe has Lawful Good criminals and terrorists? Hamburgers makes US criminals more violents? So, why Sissyl? Why with softer police and justice do we get a safer society?
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
Of course not. =)
American criminals have easier access to more guns than their european counterparts...Are you kidding? We're speaking about criminals here. For sure it's quite difficult to get a weapon legally but assault rifle from ex-Yougoslavia is "quite easy" to get illegally anywhere. It's "funny" you might think drug dealers, or even Italian, Russian or Balkan mafia only have access to (or use) butter knife or paper bullet blowgun...
HOW easily?
While I'm sure that SOME of your criminals have access to guns, that difficulty in obtaining them and the increased penalties cut down on their use signifigantly. A low level pot dealer or store robber in your country is far less likely to have a pistol than one here would be.
I don't need black market connections to get an assault rifle. I can go to walmart.
And yes, nobody in Europe eats hamburgers, ever.
I can now attest firsthand that Icelanders are obsessed with hot dogs. And they're not even very good hot dogs.
It is supposedly relatively easy to get former army weapons from the Warsaw Pact states in Europe, especially eastern Europe. It is possible to get illegal weapons, of course. The majority of gun violence crimes are perpetrated with illegal weapons, or illegally obtained legal weapons. I cannot say if it is easier to gain weapons illegally in the US than in Europe - with the abundance of legal weapons, some of them are bound to turn up in the hands of criminals, of course.
But that is somewhat beside the point. So, the police in the US seem to say that they need military-grade equipment to contain crimes and fight terrorism. Judging from this, the US probably is a criminal nightmare, with gunfights at every corner, just like in the old western movies. Otherwise, why would the police claim this? Or is it rather that the police gets this stuff and is now looking for excuses to use it, and get more of these deadly toys? I mean, isn´t it cool if your local sheriff cruises around in a mine-proof vehicle, wields an automatic gun and has all this nifty army stuff with him? Or does the populace now feel threatened and intimidated by the very people that should protect them?
As I stated above, I´ve absolutely nothing against a specialized unit trained in fighting serious and violent criminals. You need those units. But a local cop carrying around a big gun and riding an even bigger vehicle to arrest shoplifters and intimidate protesters? Hell no! Besides, most cops wield the pen much more often than the gun at the shooting range (which is fine by me), so these cops are perhaps not all that well suited to toting a big gun around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Icelanders and food is a concept best not dwelt too deeply on.
Dealing with a drunk redneck with a hunting rifle that can turn a deer into chunky salsa at half a mile is a not all that unusual a situation in some parts of the country.
At the other end of the spectrum you have a lot of people with pretty much the same sidearms (or better) than what the police have.
Dealing with that with nothing but a 9 mm pistol is either being out gunned or a fair fight, neither of which are a good thing.
BNW, I see that this is a problem. So, the number of legal and illegal weapons around poses some problems, especially if people are trigger-happy. This seems to be a classical arms race, then, and partially a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. If there are more guns around, people are prone to using them - so you need more guns and protective stuff to make people think twice about using them...
I´m quite happy with restrictive gun laws over here, then. Chances are, you will never even be witnessing a gun getting fired in public - only at shooting ranges or on hunts. I shot a Walther P1 and a H&K G3 while serving at the Bundeswehr, 25 years ago, and that has been my exposure to guns so far (not counting air guns), and it will probably stay that way.
Giving them better body armor is understandable, but they don't need automatic weapons, tanks, or drones.
What I would not mind is a special SWAT team that might have those, but they are only called in when criminals have such weapons.
AND even then you have to justify the approval of such weapons. You can't go rolling around in a tank, and carrying the automatic rifle just because it is collecting dust. You should be happy it is collecting dust. Until the situation warrants it you get to walk out with standard gear ONLY.
Unfortunately that is not always the case.
Many SWAT teams are being used to serve warrants. Especially for "No knock" raids, but even "knock and announce" warrants are starting to fall to them.
Edit: I will admit this case is unusual, but there was not need for a full raid. At least not the way it played out.
A low level pot dealer doesn't need a gun if caught he risks only to waste between one and three hours in police station and, if really unlucky, to be confronted to a judge telling him not to do it again (even if already caught a dozen time). Police considers he's no one, drug dealers also consider he's no one, so he's risking nothing. Having a gun can only bring him troubles.
Its not the cops he needs to worry about, its some other people like to point a gun at him and take his stuff. He's probably got more cash on him than you'll get from a supermarket and is far less likely to report it to the police.