I live in a warzone. Oh wait, no, I'm in St. Louis.

[Karl_K]

We won't hear the mainstream media talking about these statistics... Remember, it is OK for black Americans to kill black Americans.

What is your agenda here, Dancing Fire? Do you simply want to denigrate black people or is there something I am missing?

Deb

I wanted to see leaders like Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to go to Chicago/NYC and talk to the young black Americans about stop killing each other.

What does that have to do with the behavior of the police in this situation?
It should be clear to everyone that the local police department is out of control there.
Even if you take the initial shooting out the picture they are out of control.
Even after they were removed from being in charge they played Rambo and went in and caused problems and abused people unjustly.
I would not tolerate the police actions in my neighborhood, why should I be silent when they do it to someone else?
Do you think your safe from these kinds of actions by the police?
Guess what if they get by with it there, you will not be for long.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Further, I don't feel African Americans have ever really been given the equal rights. Just like I don't feel women have. If that were the case there wouldn't be a pay gap and there wouldn't be a clear disparity in how black Americans are treated vs white.

There will always be racialism, but I'd believe that we have had made some progress since the 60's, b/c without the "white votes" Obama would not be the President of the US today.

 

[Karl_K]

Yes, police forces are probably equipped differently than they have been in the past. However, our suspects are ALSO equipped differently than they have been in the past. I see the phenomenon of LE acquiring different weapons, tactical vehicles, etc as adaptation to various threats. The child predator of today has different, more sophisticated methods of finding/harming victims than the child predator of 20 years ago. Likewise, the gangsters and terrorists of today have more sophisticated weaponry than the gangsters and terrorists in the pre-9/11 world. Seems that LE would be at a huge disadvantage if the bad guys are continuously upgrading and adapting their methods if LE were to just plod along using outdated methods and equipment.

The criminals of the 1920s were better armed than they are today.
The police uparmed for a threat that never existed and never materialized and are using the equipment inappropriately and should have never had it in the first place.
An armored suburban or civilian armored car like they have had for years would serve the legitimate needs of any department.
But it would not have the intimidation factor and they could not play Rambo with them.
Using military equipment and dressing like soldiers is a problem but the bigger problem is attitude.
Throwing a flash bang into a babies crib just because they wanted to play with the toys and take someone down instead of knocking on the door.
It is a fact that swat type raids and no-knock raids have increased by a huge amount since they have been getting the toys from the military.
They are REQUIRED to use them within a year even though they did not need them in the first place.

 

[Karl_K]

I think we need a federal law requiring 360 degree car camera that come one when the office leaves the vehicle and lapel cameras for all officers.
The local department had all they money for riot gear to arm a small army but the claimed they could not afford dash cams.

 

[AGBF]

ETA--regarding the tactical clothing that so many seem to disapprove of - from personal experience, it's much more comfortable and convenient to wear that stuff. Mainly for the pockets (ever tried to carry a purse in the middle of executing a search/arrest warrant? Yeah, it doesn't work very well), and the ease of movement. It's much easier to bend down and look under things (beds, tables), crawl into attics or other tight spaces, etc. in pants/clothing that moves rather than stiff jeans and oxford shirts.

I am starting to like you, star sparkle; you keep a cool head. So I do not want to make a mountain out of a mole hill with you. Clothing is really the least important of issues when we are discussing the militarization of police. But just let me follow up on what you said about wearing what you called, "tactical clothing".

If you as a police officer routinely execute search warrants your uniform as a police officer should be designed so that you can do that job. You should not be expected to do it in stiff jeans and an oxford shirt while carrying a purse. I would think that a soft, smocky jumpsuit made of cotton with large pockets might be comfortable, but just as I do not know guns, I do not know the best materials for executing search warrants. I am just thinking of comfort.

I think that dressing up in camouflage-if that is "tactical clothing"-would be unnecessary for executing a search warrant. Here is my idea: Keep some jumpsuits that look like this-only with big pockets for evidence bags and the contents of your purse- around for when search warrants need to be executed.

Deb

 

[iheartscience]

I think we need a federal law requiring 360 degree car camera that come one when the office leaves the vehicle and lapel cameras for all officers.
The local department had all they money for riot gear to arm a small army but the claimed they could not afford dash cams.

I couldn't agree more. We should spend less money on tanks and more on cameras. The use of cameras in Rialto, CA reduced complaints against police officers by 88% and reduced the use of force by police officers by 60%. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/in-california-a-champion-for-police-cameras.html?pagewanted=all http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244

There is absolutely zero need for camouflage and tanks in the suburbs of the US. Police are here to protect and serve CITIZENS, not themselves. And law enforcement doesn't crack the top 10 list of the most dangerous jobs in the US: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

Edited to fix a typo

 

[star sparkle]

The criminals of the 1920s were better armed than they are today.
The police uparmed for a threat that never existed and never materialized and are using the equipment inappropriately and should have never had it in the first place.
An armored suburban or civilian armored car like they have had for years would serve the legitimate needs of any department.
But it would not have the intimidation factor and they could not play Rambo with them.
Using military equipment and dressing like soldiers is a problem but the bigger problem is attitude.
Throwing a flash bang into a babies crib just because they wanted to play with the toys and take someone down instead of knocking on the door.
It is a fact that swat type raids and no-knock raids have increased by a huge amount since they have been getting the toys from the military.
They are REQUIRED to use them within a year even though they did not need them in the first place.

And this is where your lack of LE experience really shows through (no offense whatsoever intended). It's easy for the public to sit back and criticize from the comfort of their couch or computer, but the public also really knows nothing about what it's like to be out on the streets and the dangers/threats we face on a daily basis. You may be surprised to know that there are very strict policies in place for situations where flashbangs, no knock warrants, the use of armored vehicles, etc are even allowed, and how many boxes must be checked off before those things will be allowed. Again, from personal experience, when those things happen it's because they were deemed necessary for the safety of the officer's and/or the safety of the public. At least, that's how it is 99% of the time.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that LE never does anything wrong, or never does something completely inappropriate for a given situation, but the knowledge you as the public have about the events leading up to warrants/operations/arrests/situations is only a drop in the bucket compared the everything that is taken into consideration before acting. Just because the public can't see or understand the reasoning behind any given LE action doesn't mean there wasn't a damned good reason for it that you'll never know.

 

[Gypsy]

I think we need a federal law requiring 360 degree car camera that come one when the office leaves the vehicle and lapel cameras for all officers.
The local department had all they money for riot gear to arm a small army but the claimed they could not afford dash cams.

I couldn't agree more. We should spend less money on tanks and more on cameras. The use of cameras in Rialto, CA reduced complaints against police officers by 88% and reduced the use of force by police officers by 60%. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/us/in-california-a-champion-for-police-cameras.html?pagewanted=all http://online.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244

There is absolutely zero need for camouflage and tanks in the suburbs of the US. Police are here to protect and serve CITIZENS, not themselves. And law enforcement doesn't crack the top 10 list of the most dangerous jobs in the US: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

Edited to fix a typo

WORD!

 

[star sparkle]

I am starting to like you, star sparkle; you keep a cool head. So I do not want to make a mountain out of a mole hill with you. Clothing is really the least important of issues when we are discussing the militarization of police. But just let me follow up on what you said about wearing what you called, "tactical clothing".

If you as a police officer routinely execute search warrants your uniform as a police officer should be designed so that you can do that job. You should not be expected to do it in stiff jeans and an oxford shirt while carrying a purse. I would think that a soft, smocky jumpsuit made of cotton with large pockets might be comfortable, but just as I do not know guns, I do not know the best materials for executing search warrants. I am just thinking of comfort.

I think that dressing up in camouflage-if that is "tactical clothing"-would be unnecessary for executing a search warrant. Here is my idea: Keep some jumpsuits that look like this-only with big pockets for evidence bags and the contents of your purse- around for when search warrants need to be executed.

Deb

Lol, Deb, that photo made me giggle!

Again, and I guess it's a matter of opinion, the current tactical clothing IS designed to allow us to do our jobs. The public outcry about it doesn't seem to matter whether it's camouflage or a solid color (the article ksinger linked to a bit ago was upset about LE's use of black tactical clothing), but rather the style. That style IS what is best for us to do the job. Cotton or another non-tactical material would rip easily, not allow much movement, be uncomfortably hot, not water resistant, or whatever.

Re: the bolded above, that's exactly when it's worn - for tactical situations. I'm sitting at my desk right now in skinny jeans, ballet flats, and a cute top. But when I'm out on an operation or out training, you can bet that I'm in my tac pants and boots. I choose to wear black because it doesn't show dirt and junk as easily (and many houses/places we go are filthy), and because black matches everything. But I also have tan and olive green pants that are the same style that I only wear occasionally. Maybe it wouldn't be so objectionable if they were pink.

 

[ame]

I think we need a federal law requiring 360 degree car camera that come one when the office leaves the vehicle and lapel cameras for all officers.
The local department had all they money for riot gear to arm a small army but the claimed they could not afford dash cams.

To be clear: Ferguson chose not to use the grant they were given to afford those dash cams. But they are not the department with all this riot and military gear, that's St. Louis County, which is hugemongous in terms of budget and manpower. THEY have the MRAPS and snipers, etc. Not Ferguson. Ferguson is just a suburb within St. Louis County, so the County Police back them up.

 

[Karl_K]

I think we need a federal law requiring 360 degree car camera that come one when the office leaves the vehicle and lapel cameras for all officers.
The local department had all they money for riot gear to arm a small army but the claimed they could not afford dash cams.

To be clear: Ferguson chose not to use the grant they were given to afford those dash cams. But they are not the department with all this riot and military gear, that's St. Louis County, which is hugemongous in terms of budget and manpower. THEY have the MRAPS and snipers, etc. Not Ferguson. Ferguson is just a suburb within St. Louis County, so the County Police back them up.

Thanks for reminding me of that but it does not change the facts they chose not to invest in the equipment that may have told the real story of what happened.
Both departments are at fault for the actions afterwards.

 

[Karl_K]

And this is where your lack of LE experience really shows through (no offense whatsoever intended). It's easy for the public to sit back and criticize from the comfort of their couch or computer, but the public also really knows nothing about what it's like to be out on the streets and the dangers/threats we face on a daily basis. You may be surprised to know that there are very strict policies in place for situations where flashbangs, no knock warrants, the use of armored vehicles, etc are even allowed, and how many boxes must be checked off before those things will be allowed. Again, from personal experience, when those things happen it's because they were deemed necessary for the safety of the officer's and/or the safety of the public. At least, that's how it is 99% of the time.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend that LE never does anything wrong, or never does something completely inappropriate for a given situation, but the knowledge you as the public have about the events leading up to warrants/operations/arrests/situations is only a drop in the bucket compared the everything that is taken into consideration before acting. Just because the public can't see or understand the reasoning behind any given LE action doesn't mean there wasn't a damned good reason for it that you'll never know.

Wow us vs them shines bright.
That is the problem right there!
Were special and we get to gas and pound on people and kick doors down of the peons who cant understand us while drivng around in mraps and being tati-cool and its all good because we say so!

The tati-cool outfits are for one thing and one thing only intimidation.
Wow we get to dress up and play super warrior and bust some chops! and points guns at people and be all bad!
Its all good because we say so!
It comes down to a total lack of respect for the community and the people in it.
Us vs them

Rude awaking, police only have authority because the people let them have authority.
Abuse that authority and it can and should be taken away.
Has it reached a tipping point? To soon to tell but keep it up and the day is coming.

 

[kenny]

What's "LE"?

 

[Karl_K]

What's "LE"?

law enforcement.

 

[star sparkle]

Wow us vs them shines bright.
That is the problem right there!
Were special and we get to gas and pound on people and kick doors down of the peons who cant understand us while drivng around in mraps and being tati-cool and its all good because we say so!

The tati-cool outfits are for one thing and one thing only intimidation.
Wow we get to dress up and play super warrior and bust some chops! and points guns at people and be all bad!
Its all good because we say so!
It comes down to a total lack of respect for the community and the people in it.
Us vs them

Rude awaking, police only have authority because the people let them have authority.
Abuse that authority and it can and should be taken away.
Has it reached a tipping point? To soon to tell but keep it up and the day is coming.

Way to completely misunderstand everything I said. Please, feel free to continue providing explanations for my actions and choices since you clearly know what's going on in my own brain better than I do. When did I ever say anything even close to what you wrote above?

For someone who claims to despise the "us vs them" mentality, you sure seem to be perpetuating it nonstop in this thread.

 

[Karl_K]

Wow us vs them shines bright.
That is the problem right there!
Were special and we get to gas and pound on people and kick doors down of the peons who cant understand us while drivng around in mraps and being tati-cool and its all good because we say so!

The tati-cool outfits are for one thing and one thing only intimidation.
Wow we get to dress up and play super warrior and bust some chops! and points guns at people and be all bad!
Its all good because we say so!
It comes down to a total lack of respect for the community and the people in it.
Us vs them

Rude awaking, police only have authority because the people let them have authority.
Abuse that authority and it can and should be taken away.
Has it reached a tipping point? To soon to tell but keep it up and the day is coming.

Way to completely misunderstand everything I said. Please, feel free to continue providing explanations for my actions and choices since you clearly know what's going on in my own brain better than I do.

lol I went over the top with it so you might see how what you said comes across.
Guess not.....

 

[star sparkle]

lol I went over the top with it so you might see how what you said comes across.
Guess not.....

Oh, forgive me, and here I thought we were attempting an actual conversation. Guess not.

 

[AGBF]

Lol, Deb, that photo made me giggle!

Again, and I guess it's a matter of opinion, the current tactical clothing IS designed to allow us to do our jobs. The public outcry about it doesn't seem to matter whether it's camouflage or a solid color (the article ksinger linked to a bit ago was upset about LE's use of black tactical clothing), but rather the style. That style IS what is best for us to do the job. Cotton or another non-tactical material would rip easily, not allow much movement, be uncomfortably hot, not water resistant, or whatever.

Re: the bolded above, that's exactly when it's worn - for tactical situations. I'm sitting at my desk right now in skinny jeans, ballet flats, and a cute top. But when I'm out on an operation or out training, you can bet that I'm in my tac pants and boots. I choose to wear black because it doesn't show dirt and junk as easily (and many houses/places we go are filthy), and because black matches everything. But I also have tan and olive green pants that are the same style that I only wear occasionally. Maybe it wouldn't be so objectionable if they were pink.

Glad I made you giggle. Women bond that way if there's no food available. As far as the pink goes: maybe. It can still be macho if it's slathered on a tank (or a Land Rover or what have you). The British Pathfinders-part of the SAS, not the Nissan cars-used them since World War II. No...I am not a military expert, but I did spend some time doing research for a Ph.D in the history of the inter-war period (that would be WWI and WWII) before I decided to become a social worker instead. So I'm not as ignorant about history as I am about guns.

Deb

 

[Dancing Fire]

What's "LE"?

A Toyota car model...

 

[Karl_K]

hmmm Deb should make em all wear this to go with the pink car:
its the tati-cool ninja bunny suit.

 

[Karl_K]

For someone who claims to despise the "us vs them" mentality, you sure seem to be perpetuating it nonstop in this thread.

Pointing out a huge problem is not perpetrating it.
Shining light on it and bringing it out in the open is a good thing.

 

[Matata]

This video depicts a man dying in St. Louis on Tuesday from police gunfire. Don't watch it if you'll be offended for any reason. I counted 10 shots, 2 after he was down. Then they handcuffed him as he was dying or already dead. The man who took the vid with his cell phone keeps saying they could have tasered him. But they didn't. They could have shot him in the leg to stop his approach. But they didn't. They could have tackled him. His hands were empty. But they didn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

 

[arkieb1]

It makes me sad that kids have to think like this (ie that it could be them next);
http://www.upworthy.com/a-16-year-old-kid-in-ferguson-says-more-with-a-marker-and-a-piece-of-paper-than-all-the-media-did?c=ufb1

 

[Karl_K]

This video depicts a man dying in St. Louis on Tuesday from police gunfire. Don't watch it if you'll be offended for any reason. I counted 10 shots, 2 after he was down. Then they handcuffed him as he was dying or already dead. The man who took the vid with his cell phone keeps saying they could have tasered him. But they didn't. They could have shot him in the leg to stop his approach. But they didn't. They could have tackled him. His hands were empty. But they didn't.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/20/kajieme-powell-shooting_n_5696546.html

A taser or pepper spray would have been more appropriate.
If your are not justified using deadly force then your not justified in shooting someone period so a leg shot is out.
At the time they fired I can't see what his left hand is doing.
A 360 view camera system in the car would have provided a much better viewpoint as would lapel cameras.
It is poor training that they are still firing after he is down.
The defense for the cops will be the "21 foot rule".

That they lied(if indeed it is proven that they did) about it means they should be convicted of murder because if it was a good shoot they would have not lied about it.

 

[AGBF]

hmmm Deb should make em all wear this to go with the pink car

Actually, that pink car carried the toughest men in the armed forces. I wasn't suggesting one like it be used by the police. It is obviously impractical for modern suburbs or urban landscapes and was made for desert warfare. My only point was that the color pink wasn't always just for ladies and shrinking violets.

 

[distracts]

I thought this article was interesting: http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/militarized-fergusons-problems.html

By Chris Cocking, University of Brighton

The town of Ferguson, Missouri has now seen ten days of almost nightly disorder following the shooting of black teenager Michael Brown by the police. The decision to bring in the National Guard has not quelled the disorder and in fact may be aggravating the situation.
Society often has a tendency to fear crowds and to presume they need to be tackled by force but it is in fact this force that can make a tense situation spill over into violence. In many cases it is the cause of a problem, not the solution.

Taking on the crowd

During the night of August 18, 31 protesters were arrested in Ferguson and Amnesty International observers were told to leave the scene.
The police deployed in the evenings in Ferguson are heavily armed with a range of sophisticated weapons. They have tear gas, sonic devices, baton rounds, and stun grenades, all of which make them look more like soldiers than civilian policeman.

These devices are indiscriminate crowd control weapons designed for dispersal and do not differentiate between protesters. Everyone is in the firing line. It’s an approach that has long been questioned by researchers of crowd behaviour. Many have argued that treating crowds forcefully and indiscriminately often escalates disorder rather than calming it. If a crowd thinks it is being treated unfairly, it will react against this treatment which can in turn cause more forceful police responses, resulting in an escalating cycle of disorder.
Describing the crowd

The language used to describe the protests in Ferguson also reflects our pervasive mistrust of crowds.

Ferguson Police Captain Ron Johnson provided a prime example of this problem when he said at a press conference that “a small number of violent agitators … hide in the crowd and then attempt to create chaos”. I have seen no CCTV footage to support this assertion and I would take issue with the premise behind it anyway. He implies that a a minority of people with malicious intent are responsible for inciting the peaceful majority to behave violently. This assumes that crowd members are easily influenced by others to do things that they would not otherwise do. If crowds were this easily influenced by others, why don’t they listen to police warnings to disperse?

The idea that crowds are gullible and uncritical of any social influence is largely a myth. If violence does occur it rarely happens because a violent minority has whipped up the the crowd. It is more likely because the police have treated the crowd in an indiscriminate way. This psychologically unites crowd members to act together against what are perceived as illegitimate attacks against them.
A study of the figures presented by the media and politicians to illustrate “irrational” criminality during the 2011 riots in the UK tells a similar story. The statistics used to describe these events were often selective or misrepresented and the conclusions drawn were not supported by detailed examination of what actually happened.

Locals from Ferguson also seem to reject this narrative of criminality and there have been much more positive accounts of recent events in the town told by those actually involved in them. The BBC has reported how some people on the ground perceive an almost festival-like atmosphere in Ferguson and described a sense of “love and support” in the crowd. Others describe locals protecting local businesses from looters. A photo circulating on Twitter even appears to show rival gang members, wearing different coloured bandanas, standing together to protect a shop.

Misunderstanding the crowd

This also shows that protestors are placing limits on the crowd’s behaviour in Ferguson. This undermines another common myth of crowd disorder – that once riots begin, anything goes and “mob rule” takes over. Evidence from the London riots suggests that the crowds behaved in complex ways. People who had been fighting police would stop to protect shops from looters and despite hostilities with police, the crowds would rarely attack fire crews or paramedics.

The disorder in Ferguson can’t be explained away by blaming a minority of bad-intentioned individuals. And responding to legitimate protests with increasingly militarised policing and force will only serve to further alienate the people of Ferguson.

Responding to these events with such overwhelming force is a move based on a fundamental distrust of crowd behaviour. The US police are probably among the most heavily armed in the world but that has not stopped urban disorder from happening. Something is clearly badly wrong when US citizens in 2014 are openly talking about their own police as an occupation force. We have to look at the broader social context when events like this happen and escalate. Long term solutions will not be found by turning police forces into the paramilitary outfits we are currently seeing on the streets of St Louis.

 

[ksinger]

And I would reply that you also don't use a bazooka to slap a mosquito. And in some cases, we may be talking a literal bazooka...

Even the inexperienced can understand this...and look on it with justified alarm.

Comments?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/

Comments on what, specifically? The incident that was discussed at the beginning of the article? Or the "militarization" theory?

Yes, police forces are probably equipped differently than they have been in the past. However, our suspects are ALSO equipped differently than they have been in the past. I see the phenomenon of LE acquiring different weapons, tactical vehicles, etc as adaptation to various threats. The child predator of today has different, more sophisticated methods of finding/harming victims than the child predator of 20 years ago. Likewise, the gangsters and terrorists of today have more sophisticated weaponry than the gangsters and terrorists in the pre-9/11 world. Seems that LE would be at a huge disadvantage if the bad guys are continuously upgrading and adapting their methods if LE were to just plod along using outdated methods and equipment.

And again, law enforcement in the U.S. is NOTHING like the military. My DH was in the military and was deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and he's also now a law enforcement officer. Amongst all this talk of the "militarization" of the police I asked him if there's any comparison that can be made, and he literally laughed at me.

ETA--regarding the tactical clothing that so many seem to disapprove of - from personal experience, it's much more comfortable and convenient to wear that stuff. Mainly for the pockets (ever tried to carry a purse in the middle of executing a search/arrest warrant? Yeah, it doesn't work very well), and the ease of movement. It's much easier to bend down and look under things (beds, tables), crawl into attics or other tight spaces, etc. in pants/clothing that moves rather than stiff jeans and oxford shirts.

Interesting, because my husband, who spent 15 years hanging out with and selling to law enforcement back in the 80's and 90s, snorted and said, "That's a cop out. I've heard those exact arguments when they wanted to go to 9mm's, and it didn't square with what they were confiscating at the time, even back then. Don't let any cop tell you he doesn't love his toys." Me: How do you know? Him: "Because I hung out with them, sold to them, and TALKED to them!" (and yes, we have current friends in LE too)

Now, of course our opinions and/or observations on this subject will likely still be brushed off as uninformed, and to a certain extent that may be fair - every profession has stuff that is arcane to the outside, I understand that. But the same observations and criticisms coming from people who were or are on the inside, demand to be addressed. Your husband may laugh at the supposedly incorrect perception of the public (but who is fostering and not doing much to counter that perception I would ask?), and say that LE is not taking on a military tone, but it looks to me as if there are veteran cops who have been around long enough to actually witness the transition that younger officers are unable to see, who would disagree.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/cops-speak-out-on-police-_n_3688999.html

excerpted text from the link above, a few of the letters from former cops:

I just finished your Wall Street Journal article and him surprised I've never read any of your writings prior to now; probably because I don't read the Huffington Post but gravitate more toward National Review; I do read Reason on ongoing basis though.
I was a cop in Southern California from 1976 to 1990 . . . went from a patrol officer to Capt. and then quit to practice law.
I have watched the "whatever it takes to go home" mindset involved in modern-day policing and am frankly pretty appalled by it. The number of police officers killed in the line of duty 70s was just as high, if not higher, on a per capita basis . . . but somehow now there is this paranoid mindset. Obviously policing can be dangerous; I have had one friend shot, and three others involved in shootings, but number one on the hit parade when I was on the street and supervising street cops was not to shoot unless absolutely necessary, and to be sure that you didn't arrest somebody unless you had a good legal basis, and were pretty sure it was the right person. Don't even get me started on no knock warrants and drug enforcement.

I worked with a lot of guys who were combat veterans from the Vietnam era, and they certainly didn't have anything to prove to anybody. They were probably less likely to get involved in violent confrontations than the types of cops I see nowadays, most of whom do not have a military background, and some who are acting out, at least to some degree, video game fantasies about being a bad ass. I always thought that "Adam 12" would have been the best training video for cops to watch, rather than some of the officer survival stuff.

Don't want to sound like an old guy opining about the good old days, but I remember when most cops had revolvers and didn't discharge hundreds of bullets in a shooting situation, or light up a pickup truck with two Hispanic ladies delivering newspapers in a mindless panic. Obviously technology in firearms is much better now, but the unfortunate downside is the 16 or 18 9 mm rounds that can be cranked out of a Glock or a Beretta in just a few seconds, and the disappearance of fire discipline that was ground into us in the police Academy.

American policing really needs to return to a more traditional role of cops keeping the peace; getting out of police cars, talking to people, and not being prone to overreaction with the use of firearms, tasers, or pepper spray. Also (said the old crank) those damn polo shirts and blue jean alternate "uniforms" have got to go too. Don't get me wrong, I've been in more than my share tussles and certainly appreciate the dangers of police work, but as Joseph Wambaugh famously said, the real danger is psychological, not physical.


……or this one, where the same brush-off of any criticism from the public, is given to a veteran.

I read and thoroughly agree with your article on SWAT . . . I was in law enforcement for thirty years . . . I was forced out of the department after being branded a traitor to the department . . . I made several speeches and op-ed letters where I called for less military hardware and a more human approach to police work at the line level . . .

I'm glad to see your article and I can attest to the accuracy of your concerns over the developing militarization of our police. When I led the transition team acquiring property from the downsizing of the former March Air Force Base in Riverside, I was contantly beseized with requests for surplus military property from helmets and M-16's to armored personnel carriers. I started out my career with a six-shot revolver, no handi-talkie and I carried a roll of dimes in my briefcase so I could call the station or dispatch. One of the first things my field training officer did to me was make me get out of the car and walk up and down both sides of a residential street and meet and talk with the residents and then walk back to him and recap the conversations. He told me I would do more talking than fighting and I would get farther with my mind than my fists. He didn't have a college degree, but he was definitely smarter than [police officials today] . . .
I am tired of beating my head with my former associates who dismiss all criticisms with phrases such as "come work a beat before you say anything". I teach sixth graders where I know I am making a difference and a change for the better. I was trained at the Los Angeles Sheriff's Academy, I retired as a sheriff's lieutenant and held a CA POST Management Certificate. I developed the project that turned 386 acres of March AFB land into the Ben Clark Public Safety Training Center. If I can ever assist you in your work on police matters, please do not hestitate to call.

 

[ame]

I think we need a federal law requiring 360 degree car camera that come one when the office leaves the vehicle and lapel cameras for all officers.
The local department had all they money for riot gear to arm a small army but the claimed they could not afford dash cams.

To be clear: Ferguson chose not to use the grant they were given to afford those dash cams. But they are not the department with all this riot and military gear, that's St. Louis County, which is hugemongous in terms of budget and manpower. THEY have the MRAPS and snipers, etc. Not Ferguson. Ferguson is just a suburb within St. Louis County, so the County Police back them up.

Thanks for reminding me of that but it does not change the facts they chose not to invest in the equipment that may have told the real story of what happened.
Both departments are at fault for the actions afterwards.

I don't dispute any of that, I just want to make it super clear that Ferguson is NOT the only one to blame here. I want to make sure the world knows that it's NOT just Ferguson.

 

[AGBF]

I'm trying to think like an "early American" here. Because I do not see any reason why I should not, why my ideals today should be different from those of the Founding Fathers.

Shouldn't the goal of rule by law be have the citizens, themselves, get their neighbors to follow the laws? Shouldn't the police, as much as possible, be made up of ordinary citizens representing the community and its values? Although "frontier justice" was often not according to the rule of law, the "posse" had good and bad features. It allowed vigilantism, but it also allowed ordinary people of a community to come together informally to pursue someone who had broken the law rather than to have one authority that existed above all others.

I do not want a band of men to have the authority to go round up the people they perceive as "the bad guys". That would bring us back to the days of the Ku Klux Klan. I like the idea of professional law enforcement where officers are trained in CPR and know the rule of law. However, there has to be a way to bring them back to being members of the community rather than seeing the community as a threat against which they must always be armed, vigilant, and ready to fight. It leads to militarization and seeing an "us" and "them" scenario. The Founding Fathers wanted the community to pick its police from amongst themselves, to be part of them. If each community chooses its own members to police them, there should be no rancor.

Deb/AGBF

 

[Karl_K]

Going back to elected Sheriffs and city marshals answerable to the people rather than police chiefs is a good idea.
Career bureaucrats is a major reason so many departments are out of control.
They feel they do not have to answer to the people.
Not that it was a perfect system but its better than today.

The Sheriff has been replaced by election in my area a few times in recent years when it was felt he was not serving the community well. It does help make for a better department.