The Terrifying Result Of The Militarization Of Police

[Gromgor]

My White Privilege is the result of my ancestors doing things to build a world that better accommodated their offspring. I'm not going to feel any more guilt about that than some kid who happens to have alumni parents should about helping them get into college. Or about having a parent that is a manager at a mega-corporation getting their kid's name in the ears of the HR department.

I refuse to feel guilty about that.

The ones who should feel guilty are 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients who teach their kids that the white man and his white privilege is what's keeping them down.

I don't deny racism exists, but I think in today's world it exists for a completely different reason than it did 50 years ago.

However, this is ultimately a sidetrack from the real discussion: The Militarization of the Police

[Red Syns]

Agreed.

In general, I actually have no issue with the "militarization" of police. As long as they don't have access to anything above and beyond what I have as a civilian, the issues are not equipment, but policy. The police have had events in the past that have clearly justified the majority of the equipment they have now.

The issue is the use of things like "No-Knock Warrants." I don't care who you are, if you kick in my door and I'm not expecting it, I will defend my family and home. There's too many instances of these warrants being executed at the wrong address, and I don't understand who could have possibly approved such an asinine tactic in the first place. Or, calling SWAT for situations that are unjustified. Or shooting first, asking questions later.

Don't get me wrong: 99% of the police act in a perfectly reasonable and rational manner 99% of the time. We don't hear about the policeman who gives his boots to the homeless guy in the news. We don't often have interactions with the police that would be considered positive, because most of the time they're protecting us from acts considered "bad," and those end in negative repercussions. Unfortunately, at least one of three situations is coming to happen:

1. Police are committing crimes with increasing frequency.
2. The media are reporting on police criminal activities with increasing frequency.
3. The media is reporting events they don't know anything about with a police-negative spin.

Take Ferguson, Missouri: the more details that come out about the event that transpired, the more I'm inclined to think the policeman was justified in the shooting. Yet the media reported in a manner that induced anger and riots up until they finally decided to stop reporting on it altogether.

TL;DR? The police need better policies in the utilization of force. The media needs to return to reporting facts, not spinning atrocities. People need to realize that the great majority of policemen act in the best interest of the public, or what they consider the best interests, anyway. There have been events in the past, and will be events again, that justify the majority of the equipment policemen have in their arsenal: the problem is not the gear, it's how it's used.

[Gromgor]

There have been events in the past, and will be events again, that justify the majority of the equipment policemen have in their arsenal: the problem is not the gear, it's how it's used.

I disagree with this. The police should not have military-level equipment because they aren't supposed to be a military force. Anything requiring that level of hardware should involve the National Guard, otherwise, what is the purpose of the NG?

The militarization of the -Police- places a standing army inside the US borders whose entire role is for suppression of the American people.

[Red Syns]

I disagree with both the standing military and the "only purpose is to repress the American people." Their role is rapid response to a crisis, not active suppression. I'm not saying the police should go around 24/7 in full kevlar wielding AR-15s in full auto, THAT would be a standing military with the intent of suppression.

Everyone talks about how the police should not have "military" equipment, but I don't think there is a cohesion between understanding what "military equipment" and "civilian equipment" really is. An M-16/M-4 can be readily acquired on the streets as an AR-15, minus fully automatic capability. Does the military use it? Sure. So do a lot of civilians. Should the police have fully automatic weaponry? Fuck no, that's absurd. Full auto is for suppressive fire only, and there's no reason for a policeman to ever need that sort of ability. There have been many instances (Miami Shootout being one) where rifles would have been REALLY NICE for the police to have available.

So the Evil Black Rifle is, indeed, not actually military kit. So...the body armor, then? Nope, you can get that too. It's expensive, but civilians can get the same stuff/better stuff than even the military can get. In emergency calls where there are active shooters, do you really want the cops to go in without armor? Just doesn't make sense. Should they go around in it on a daily basis? Not so much.

So the Evil Black Rifle and the Body Armor are not military kit. "Sniper rifles" are obscene for police work, surely? Eh...not in a hostage situation. Getting through a window and into a bad guy, reliably and with accuracy, requires something bigger than a .223/5.56 and faster than a pistol. If you take a moment to search for Remington 700 online, you'll find that the most popular "sniper rifle" for use by actual snipers is widely available to civilians also. You'll notice that I put quotes around sniper rifle, and that's because a sniper rifle is nothing but a rifle designed to be more accurate than a standard rifle. This is done at all calibers, from .22lr to .50bmg.

So...the EBR, body armor, and sniper rifles have all been shown to not only be useful in a variety of situations, but also widely available to Joe Public. Out of that, we've determined that the police have no need for automatic weaponry. Let's look at the things that I think could be done away with:

-Armored vehicles. I don't disagree with armoring police cars, as in kevlar lined doors or such. They get shot at, and having something to hide behind is good! But some police agencies have hulking APCs that I cannot imagine a single time they would be more useful than the Brinks-style SWAT vans already in use.
-Automatic weaponry. I don't know if any police agencies actually have such a thing, but if they do, then there's no reason for it.
-Anything local ordinances prohibit civilians from owning. If your people aren't allowed to use it, neither are you.

That's about it. Nothing else the police have is "military grade" equipment, it's all stuff you can get as a civilian, and without any special licenses even!

Now, what does need to change (and I said it earlier) is policies governing the use of this equipment. It should remain locked up except when:

1. Training
2. Actual emergency justifies breaking the gear out

This is a policy issue, not an equipment issue. If you're going to search a house, it should be done with a standard warrant. If you don't have any indication (i.e. direct threats) of violence, then it should be done with a minimum of force. That is to say, you hold a piece of paper, you knock on the door. If nobody answers, a certified locksmith will open the front door WITHOUT kicking it in. You will announce yourself prior to entering any room. Common sense stuff that won't get you shot up for kicking in the wrong door.

[Aristotle]

This is a policy issue, not an equipment issue.

That is how I feel as well. When I think about the "militarization of police", I am concerned more with the use of military tactics and rules rather than the equipment itself.

The police should have a default position of "protect and serve", with the serve being the public.