Militarized police

[10-96inTexas]

I am correct......

Because I only responded to what was reported as evidence of an "increased frequency" of botched police raids.

I have no clue if the Cato Institute study has any validity to it at all and made no such claim either way. I do know however that by looking at their own statistics by year, it shows a dramatic decrease in police mistakes as opposed to it as being evidence of "increased frequency" by the member I was responding to.

As far as your article, like the previous one, I have no clue as to its validity. A guy named Sean Piccoli wrote it and he does not back up his 5 points other than to cite a source. Two of which was vox.com, one was a story only of local judges from the Denver Post and two were from the ACLU (there is a real credible source for police related issues).

The article lists no conclusions or backing but merely makes five points and uses various sources to back up whatever point it is that ol' Sean is trying to make. Maybe they are completely correct and maybe they are completely bogus. I suspect that there may be some validity to some of his (as he claims) "facts" but he draws no conclusion or evidence of what it means.

For example, it cites the Denver Post as saying the police are not asking for a no knock warrant but apparently a judge is changing the police officer's own request. Assuming that is true, does it reflect an abuse by officers when they do not ask for a no knock warrant, an abuse by a judge or is a judge on reading the information, erring on the side of caution and giving officers an edge that they did not ask for?

Another is the ACLU saying that tactical teams now run almost 80% of their raids on drug investigations and not hostages. Hostages was one of the main reasons that SWAT was invented back in the late 1960s. That is true. Is it bad that SWAT was invented to stop violent offenders and is now used for raids against possible violent offenders? I am not sure however the ACLU's conclusion is that since SWAT was originated for hostages and other violent acts, it should not have evolved or be used for other means.

I spent 10 years on SWAT (15 years and 40 pounds ago) and most of the raids we ran on drug houses had some kind of history of a gun being there at some point or people frequenting those places that had a violent history. Of course many times the home owner had no violent history so I guess the ACLU conclusion is that there is not a likelihood of a violent act against officers. I don't see it that way but we can each draw our own conclusion.

and I spent 17 years as a street cop, homicide detective and my ex was an assistant district attorney, asst. US attorney. And I don't like seeing innocent people die whether they are law enforcement or lowly citizens.

[trad"Doc"53]

Riot control.

What happened in Ferguson shoots down that theory. And look at the over the top patrol boats the DPS have with 50 cals mounted that they never are allowed to use. Hasn't put much of a dent in the overflow of illegals. Want to stop a riot, shoot to kill ANYONE throwing anything that can cause injury or anyone looting/burning or assaulting other people. Oh, and for the record, I back the police all the way and think they do need some of this equipment.

[GatorBait]

Can I buy one of these things? I need one too. I hunt in southeast Texas.....

[JAV324]

PD I work for has one, they have used it several times to save the lives of flood victims.

[trooperjd]

Oh boy back button for me. after being away from my family for an extended period of time and just getting home from working the border, it's best I keep my mouth shut. Good day to all and be safe.

[Pullersboy]

?

I think it's overboard.

How in the world is it overboard? This is NOT an offensive weapon. It's an armored troop carrier. This will keep the officers safe so that they can be taken into dangerous situations so that they can protect citizens like yourself by staying relatively safe while going into a dangerous situation or area. I'm not sure how many times you've been shot at in your life, but have more times than I care to count. I would love to have had one of these at my disposal. Moat of the time when teams go to serve narcotics search warrants for example they pull up in front of a known dangerous location is a regular old white panel van (tin can with windows). How would you feel about being trapped in that when someone inside the house has been tipped off by the lookout and you start receiving AK-47 fire before your even out of the vehicle? Or, perhaps there's an active shooter or bombs being set off at Texas Motor Speedway (or take your pick of large public events). How'd you like the guys who are going to stop the killing being able to get there in once piece so they can save you and your family. I know when I was on a tac team, we always had a team on standby near or on the property of the facility specifically to respond to such an event. There is so much more that goes into public safety than the BS that the media sells you about the so called "militarization of police." In no way havery our police officers been militarized. In fact, they continue to restrict our ability to do our jobs efficiently every day. There's a whole lot more "hug a thug" mentality being forced upon us and our procedures than there is anything else.

[Jeremy7306]

I am perfectly fine with PD having armored vehicles. Whatever keeps them safe. It's not like it's got rocket launchers.

[BigRed323]

I really don't get some of you people....

[tvc184]

and I spent 17 years as a street cop, homicide detective and my ex was an assistant district attorney, asst. US attorney. And I don't like seeing innocent people die whether they are law enforcement or lowly citizens.

I don't either. Any innocent death is tragic.

Not sure where that came from though.

[Buck Roar]

This will be one of those agree to disagree conversations.....its like when you point somewhere in the room and your dog looks at your finger not where you are pointing at.

Several of us are leery of over reaching governments. While some of you are on the front line and want all the protection you can get. Just two different point of views.

In the meantime ya'll are all talking about it...but you are really missing what the real issue is, which is $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Wars are slowing down....Senators have contributors that need to sell 'police equipment' to help flood victims.

[twobanger]

And for those of you who think that it is a ploy to take your guns, a little good reading why it's not going to happen from a very respectable guy

http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-ho...-by-paul-howe/

History has a strange way of repeating itself.
For example: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/23/th...#ixzz417mCfsa3

Since I know someone will go all Ad Hominem for using Daily Caller, here's the NPR version: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/21/467547...ssault-weapons

[Pullersboy]

This will be one of those agree to disagree conversations.....its like when you point somewhere in the room and your dog looks at your finger not where you are pointing at.

Several of us are leery of over reaching governments. While some of you are on the front line and want all the protection you can get. Just two different point of views.

In the meantime ya'll are all talking about it...but you are really missing what the real issue is, which is $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Wars are slowing down....Senators have contributors that need to sell 'police equipment' to help flood victims.

It's my understanding that at least some of these vehicles cab be bought as military surplus by LE agencies at a cheaper rate than the civilian variety of armored vehicles. I know my agency has a Bearcats that cost in the $300K range. If you can buy a surplus APC for a cheaper price and it can hold more pax then why wouldn't you? Seems like a wiser use of tax dollars to me.

[Smell the Glove]

If they are dealing with violent criminals why in the hell would you not want them to use everything necessary? If it was your kid held up in a school cafeteria and cop cars on the perimeter you'd be yelling that they weren't doing enough. Geez

Just joining this so I'm very far behind. But what if you don't trust you local department to determine that? After reading some of those no-knock stories I just don't know if this is a good idea.

[tvc184]

This will be one of those agree to disagree conversations.....its like when you point somewhere in the room and your dog looks at your finger not where you are pointing at.

Several of us are leery of over reaching governments. While some of you are on the front line and want all the protection you can get. Just two different point of views.

In the meantime ya'll are all talking about it...but you are really missing what the real issue is, which is $$$$$$$$$$$$$. Wars are slowing down....Senators have contributors that need to sell 'police equipment' to help flood victims.

I understand the overreaching government. I think almost everyone thinks they overreach but the only disagreement might be where.

You claim there is a difference between two sides.... overreaching vs. protection. Why are those mutually exclusive? In other words, what does providing armor have to do with overreaching?

When I started in law enforcement, probably 75% of officers nationwide carried revolvers. After the Miami FBI shootout, the switch to almost all pistols was fairly swift. The police found out that 5 and 6 shot revolvers weren't the best option. When I started, soft body armor was available but not so widely used. Now is is almost universal. I think a majority of police agencies (and still many out there) did not allow patrol rifles. Then the North Hollywood shootout happened and we found out that the second largest police agency in this country could have an entire shift pinned down by two guys standing in the open... because they had no access to rifles.

Do those protections make for an overreach?

Again, I understand a government that intrudes on liberties but you mention overreaching and protection in the same sentence as a point of disagreement. What does one have to do with other?

While I doubt that anyone disagrees with officers wearing body armor, they still don't want the officers entering their homes forcefully without a valid warrant. I agree. What does the body armor or pistol or patrol rifle have to do with violating rights?

It seems like actions are the problem with government intrusions, not the piece of equipment carried. Take the police out of it and think of our military. Do we want any less than the best protection available? Yet a governor can activate the National Guard and possibly intrude on citizen's rights. Is it the equipment owned by the military that is the problem or would it be the government that uses the military personnel for unlawful means?

For the record, I am against an overreaching government and that goes from local all the way up to the top. It would not be hard to come up with a laundry list of things Obama has done that I do not believe are lawful and apparently some federal courts have agreed.

I still don't see why officers should go unprotected because if a government wants officers to violate people's rights and the officer is willing, equipment isn't going to help or hurt. In fact when the situations arise where officers do cross the line whether intentionally, accidentally or unknowingly... I'll bet the equipment had no bearing on it.

What am I missing?

[sir shovelhands]

I am correct......

Because I only responded to what was reported as evidence of an "increased frequency" of botched police raids.

I have no clue if the Cato Institute study has any validity to it at all and made no such claim either way. I do know however that by looking at their own statistics by year, it shows a dramatic decrease in police mistakes as opposed to it as being evidence of "increased frequency" by the member I was responding to.

Nowhere in my post did I say there was an increased frequency of botched raids, I said

"My problem is not with the equipment, it's with the unnecessary increasing frequency of the use of such equipment and tactics like no-knock raids, especially for petty crimes. Look at statistics for the use of SWAT and tactical teams over the past 30 years. In 1980 there were 3000 SWAT raids a year. Now there are 80,000. Only 7% of which involve an active shooter or hostage."

Then I said that a no-knock raid at my own home would likely end in my death (as a gun-owner), similar to what happened in other cases, per my link.

That is all.

You're attacking an argument I never made.