SWAT: Time to Rein In Excessive Response
In my new home state of Arkansas — a beautiful, reasonably inexpensive place to live, which I recommend to all retirees — we recently had another unfortunate incident that should illustrate that the militarization of local police forces has gone far beyond the needs of the domestic communities those police forces are sworn to protect and serve.
In Pine Bluff, an old, old man, reported to be 107, lost touch with the world in which he had lived so long and became agitated. The old codger fired a pistol at responding police officers, which immediately earned him a deadly SWAT team visit.
Agreed, any perpetrator firing on arriving officers opens himself up to a world of hurt. You simply do not fire at men who are formidably armed and authorized to use deadly force under the auspices of their local government. Responding officers have little to no information upon their immediate arrival on the scene. Whatever transpires in that period of immediacy is usually accepted as the necessary police response required to suppress an extant threat to the public welfare with whatever amount of immediate force is required.
But what is to be said of a heavily armed and armored tactical squad of large, fierce, armed, and armored men, who storm the small confines of a poor old man, who has endured penurious life for more than a century and whose mental faculties have surely by all that time been diminished, and shoot him dead? Yes, they used gas, but their version of events is that the gas failed to deter the intransigent old man. Excuse me, but I was a chemical and biological warfare NCO in the Army, who in years past conducted gas defense training, and I have to tell you: I don’t believe that explanation for a single minute. In the confined space of a small house, the effects of properly deployed CS gas grenades are incapacitating to young, trained, and prepared soldiers in their prime. To an old man over a hundred years, they would have to be damned near lethal.
The explanation that the centenarian would, after such a gassing assault, be sufficiently capable of presenting a deadly threat to authorities would be laughable were it not so tragic. There’s an old military term, gung-ho, which describes an enthusiasm for the task or mission at hand. In my six years in the 101st and 82nd Airborne, it was frequently used in a positive manner, to define those dedicated to the success of a mission, but also in a derogatory manner to demean those who were too eager to accomplish the mission at whatever cost.
And there lies the rub: based upon stories that come to us from around our country, there are far too many SWAT units being deployed to deal with situations that truly do not require their gung-ho military capabilities. It is of a piece with the growing tendency in community governments to over-respond to every minor disturbance, driven no doubt by the legal hyenas always lurking on the tort-defined peripheries of any community incident. I recently viewed a minor fender-bender in New Mexico, and present were seven emergency vehicles, including multiple fire trucks and ambulances, all with lights flashing and far too many personnel acting importantly and officiously. Four-lane traffic had to be directed to side roads — not because of the vehicles involved in the accident, but due to the completely road-covering spread of the various first-responders.
That saddens me, because I’m a believer in effective policing and public safety within our communities. But I am fed up with this gross overreaction to minor disturbances that were once handled by an officer, or two at most, but that now require a major callout of community first responders. Every time all those people roll out, it costs the taxpayers and the insurance companies of the citizens involved unbelievable amounts. Justifications for larger annual budgets are based upon the number of times those units were deployed in the last budget cycle. Enter into this calculus the self-serving machinations of public service unions, and we are quickly looking at a scam of the taxpayers of major proportions. Ask yourself this: “How much is it costing me as a taxpayer to have all those unnecessary firemen and EMTs standing around observing the local cops sort out a fender-bender?”
It’s the first responder equivalent of superfluous highway workers standing around leaning on their shovels while a few of them actually work. The term that survives from my youth is “featherbedding,” and it is apparently alive and well in public-service employment. That is maddening enough, but when such employment overkill and the required self-justifications result in the needless killing of a 107-year-old man, they have progressed beyond political corruption to a deadly vindicating of their existence that is unacceptable to the communities they profess to protect. That is not only sad; in some cases, it should be prosecutable.
And please, spare me, those of you in public employment who would be eager to remind me that I wouldn’t be critical of the excessive turnout of first responders if it were my life on the line. Old, retired businessman and ex-Army NCO that I am, I would be demanding to my last breath:
“Just what the hell is your function here?”
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Crime
To #47, I didn’t say that at all, but thanks for perpetuating the problem. You have to realize that I interact with criminals every single day, and most of my interaction with people who are normally law-abiding, productive members of society is when they screw up a little bit and can’t believe that they have to take responsibility for their actions because “my heavens I am usually a law-abiding productive member of society and what is your badge number I am reporting you to the the chief who goes golfing with my uncle every week because driving 55 through a neighborhood isn’t really that bad because I didn’t actually hit any little kids you pig.” If I seem a little grumpy about that, it is because it is far too regular an occurrence. You as a normal, productive member of society, on the other hand, might deal with a cop once a month, if you are unlucky and drive like a madman. My sister is the worst driver on the planet, and she only ever interacts with on-duty police officers during her yearly car accidents. One in four of your interactions might be with a grumpy officer because you are the fifteenth person he has pulled over tonight who couldn’t POSSIBLY have been speeding that bad, or couldn’t POSSIBLY have run that red light. The rest of the time you read about this cops gone bad crap on the news and assume it happens all the time. You assume that all cops are bad, all cops are corrupt, all cops want nothing more than to protect their careers and their buddies rather than to protect the people we are sworn to protect. In reality, these are the bad apples of the bad apples. I’m not robocop, I don’t need an MRAP, I love my town and the people in it, but it is easy to become jaded when people treat you like crap hourly. Like I said, you may get treated poorly by a cop quarterly, if you are constantly putting yourself into the position to interact with police. I… Read more »
@49
Well, let’s point something else out:
Our statistic for ‘mental illness’ keeps going up because behavior we define as ‘mental illness’ encompasses a larger and larger and larger range of behaviors. We’ve gone from Autism to ‘Autism Spectrum’. We’ve gone from Sociopathy to ‘Socipathic traits/tendencies’.
How about the way we define ‘impairment’? In our granddad’s time, the definition of impairment with liquor was .15% or higher ABV. Today, .15% or higher ABV, in most states, triggers mandatory sentences.
So, I reject the notion that people are any more drunk or high than they were 50 years ago.
As for the neighborhoods that are war zones? In my experience, police tend to not go there, or wait to go there so long that they might as well not have gone at all. A friend of mine lives in District 3 in Cincinnati. He saw a junkie drop a handgun as he ran about a block from the police station. He stopped his car near it and called the cops (who, remember, are a block away). They did nothing. Twenty minutes later, the junkie came back and retrieved his handgun. The cops may as well not even be there for all the good they did.
Ever wonder how many ‘neighborhoods’ have been ceded to illegal activity because the police don’t want to go there? Personally, I just feel bad for the good people who live there and can’t count on the police to do anything more than identify bodies, the people who’ve lived in their house for 40 years and are too stubborn or broke and old to move.
And #50, you’re a liar. That’s all I’m going to say. You’re a provocative liar and probably a huge asshole to boot, so thanks for playing. Supposing you hypothetically did run into some nervous meathead officer who pulled a gun on you (which I won’t ever believe) one cop in wherever you live is a poor sample to smear the other 765,000 sworn officers in the US.
I can’t wait for your next message board post “waah waah, not only did I create that false memory that a cop pulled a gun on me, there was also one who was a meanie to me on the interwebs!?! What a world, what a world!!”
I had a life before I was a cop. I had a concealed weapons permit. I jogged. I carried water bottles. I never had problems with police. I was respectful and patient if pulled over (which wasn’t frequently), I would give policke my CCW permit and I NEVER ONCE had a problem. Once, I talked guns a bit with the officer and he escorted me to a gas station to fill up my flat tire. I had one negative interaction with a police officer because I was being a stupid kid and causing danger to other people, and frankly I deserved it.
So I don’t know who you think you are, That Guy, but you’re a liar and a troll.
@’Guard Cop’
Sure, sport. The cops are angels, who never overreact. All the problems that people have with them? Really our fault.
Guard cop-“One in four of your interactions might be with a grumpy officer because (extraneous blah, blah, blah).” His interactions with others are no excuse for him to treat me, or anyone else, with disrespect. I admit that one of the interactions that has led me to think that there is a problem with cop behavior came on a traffic stop when I was speeding (I was going 60 in a 50 zone). I didn’t realize that I was speeding, but I didn’t try to contest it and I resented that he gave me a ration of $hit from the moment he walked up to my window (I was strictly “yes sir” and “no sir” with him). He wouldn’t even let me ask a question for clarification about how I needed to pay the fine, just cut me off. But that interaction is hardly the sum total of why I have become jaded about how cops routinely deal with the public. Things like the cop who I was in BNCOC with when the local police shot a guy (as far as I know it was justified) and he was laughing about it the next day, saying “those are some happy cops”, because they were essentially going to get paid time off while it was investigated (and I don’t have a problem with that, but the idea that they were “happy” about it-because he would be-was perverse). Last week a friend was in a nearby city and he was trying to find a large auditorium, he pulled up next to a cop to ask directions and got his ass chewed for his trouble, the cop was on the phone, he had one of those earpiece devices and my friend didn’t realize it-how is that appropriate? Lots of guys I went to school with became cops, I knew most of them pretty well and they are pretty good guys and so I don’t think that most cops are corrupt, but that’s not to say that I don’t think there’s a problem with how cops routinely deal with the public. If you can’t… Read more »
#37: “I’ve repeatedly explained to him that I’m a bad risk for any department because my training was not about ‘protect and serve’, it was about ‘control and dominate’, and that also happens to be how I am comfortable dealing with any situation I might find to be personally threatening. That’s NOT a good place to start from as a peace officer.”
That bears repeating.
Ian:
Out of curiosity, why does that bear repeating. That’s probably how most people would respond to something they find PERSONALLY THREATENING. Why shouldn’t that be a good place to start? In fact, I believe that a military vet (especially a combat vet) would have a much different idea of what is personally threatening than a regular civilian.
I have respect for police, but they seem to shoot one unarmed person per year in Fairfax County, VA. Google “unarmed man killed by Fairfax officer” and you’ll see the stories and dates.
I won’t comment specifically on the old man, but here is some food for thought. When was the last time you heard police referred to as peace officers instead of law enforcement officers? Or police referring to the population as civilians, doesn’t civilian mean under civil law, and therefore include them? There is a militarization of police and it’s coupled with a mindset change in officers. That is a very dangerous combination.
Mike: I didn’t actually ask a question, I made a statement couched as a question, a common debate tactic meant to belittle the competition. Sorry I wasn’t clearer, I figured an adult debater would recognize the sarcasm, true to form you entirely missed it. As for your assertion that I should be familiar with feeling defensive because civilians make sweeping generalizations about military personnel, guess what scooter, I’m an adult and don’t feel defensive about those kinds of generalizations at all. Rather than taking the tact that you do, and get defensive, I attempt to educate, calmly and intelligently using facts. I don’t deepen the divide by personifying the attitude that’s in question in the first place. Something you could obviously learn from. Additionally, a couple of the things you tried to address with me in your response were not anything I had brought up or defended in these posts, there’s an awful lot of projection in your contribution. In particular I find it funny that you and Notasquid pick a couple pieces of obvious hyperbole, that was offered as obvious hyperbole, to harp on, just another example of shallow thinking. AW1 Tim’s suggestion (not mine) that cops should only have revolvers and shotguns is admittedly not workable, I do however think there is an over emphasis on hardware to solve problems that patience would probably take care of a lot more safely. And the force projection involved in the over use of SWAT tactics is simply counterproductive. And he also didn’t say SWAT operators don’t ‘have balls’ as you put it, you came up with that entirely on your own. What he was trying to say is basically that SWAT operators balls are so big that they’ve gotten in the way of their brains. Your interpretation is pretty revealing though. Common Sense’s assertion (not mine) that hard targets should be given to the Guard was offered tongue in cheek. The idea being that there really aren’t enough situations out there in the normal course of things that require the kind of overwhelming force that SWAT seems to be used… Read more »
#57
Glad to oblige. 🙂
“I’ve repeatedly explained to him that I’m a bad risk for any department because my training was not about ‘protect and serve’, it was about ‘control and dominate’, and that also happens to be how I am comfortable dealing with any situation I might find to be personally threatening. That’s NOT a good place to start from as a peace officer.”
Hey Ian, your last name doesn’t start with a B does it? Wondering if you’re someone I know.
Mike, have you the awareness to consider that the image you have portrayed here: angry, belligerent, intolerant of any opposing view, has served to reinforce the image that so many Americans now hold of their local police? You have been unnecessarily aggressive in a forum where you aren’t dealing with folks intimidated by bluster and name calling.
And all of those impositions on your tolerance by the populace you cite are nothing new. I was a military policeman fifty years ago and every slight you cite as justifying your belligerent enforcement occurred then just as now. It is the nature of a free people to resist the authority of the state, particularly the minor authority of local policing of minimal infractions of the law.
You’d best learn that or find yourself another job.
@Mike
It bears repeating because of what I see as the replacement of town and city police forces by a paramilitary culture that I do not like. And that’s personal. I’ve worked with cops, and I’ve worked with soldiers and I’ve been in the sand, and you are talking two worlds apart. Armed SWAT raids on poker games or grow-ops? That’s not policing, that’s warfare, and it’s just the luck of the draw or a bad address before you and your family get to play Red team for free at 4 a.m.
And no, Jacobite, I don’t think you know me.
Guys, I really think you are talking past each other here. I doubt you will find too many cops who disagree that some police actions may be excessive, but that’s no reason to pile onto the cops who have come here to try to pull back the curtain a little bit. As both a cop and a Reservist, I feel the same dignity in both lines of work, but I notice ( and have studied in pursuit if my masters degree) that the police have always played little brother to the military. All throughout U.S. history, except fr maybe the sixties, soldiers have been lauded and admired by the populace, because most of what they do is out of sight, out of mind. Cops have always been hated, because they are right there; an omnipresent force arresting people in your town, writing tickets to you. They never leave, they are always there. I think many police just want the respect that comes with the military, so they try to emulate it. Foolish though it may be, our society’s current adulation of the military seems to make some departments believe they can achieve the same respect through the same means
Cops have much less leeway and much more daily pressure than the military outside the sandbox. Saying you went to BNCOC with a cop who took pleasure in killing people is alarming, but what do you say about soldiers who say the same thing? I take it with a little more than a grain of salt, and chalk it up to posturing and blustering (because you and I both know plenty of that goes on among NCOs.) I hope I never have to kill anyone in either of my lines of work, and I remain professional in both my lines of work.
Knowing cops is not the same as being a cop. Being an MP is not the same as being a city cop. Please give us the benefit of the doubt and forgive us when we behave less that couthly.
Dave C.
Dave C.:
I totally get what you’re saying, even agree with a lot of it.
I’m actually a big supporter of intellectually honest law enforcement, as is almost every one here. What gets my back up is the arrogant ‘closing of ranks’ I perceive in people like Mike and Guard Cop. Bring up a criticism and watch the denials that there’s a problem fly. I don’t deny that officers in certain environments face dangers and situations that are far greater than around here. However, I don’t believe those extreme areas are mirrored very extensively around the country, while the militarization that appears to be happening seems very widespread. It’s certainly not needed in my neck of the woods, and in those places where it’s somewhat justifiable it seems to be poorly marketed to the public, badly managed, and over used.
I never forget who I work for, and go to great lengths to make sure I’m working in a way that is palatable to them while still trying to accomplish my job.
Anyway, I appreciate the contribution Dave.
Jacobite: I think the term you were looking for was Rhetorical Question. I’d assume a master debater such as yourself would know that. It was a pretty pathetic attempt to prove a point about a national trend as opposed to misuse of local government funds but you get an points for the effort. As far as you many claims to being an adult, being calm or using facts, I’ll be waiting when you prove any of those assertions….scooter. You think many of the comments above were obvious hyperbole? I highly doubt it. That is just your attempt to dismiss my arguments without actually addressing them. What were you saying about shallow thinking? The militarization of police in this country is a debate worth having. However, when people like AW1 Time and that guy and several others make ignorant statements, they need to be addressed. As far as patience, I do not think you have an understanding of modern policing within our current society. I highly recommend a ride along to educate yourself as to the realities of the job. You might actually learn something. In regards to SWAT balls, he also didn’t specifically say what you took it as. It was an insinuation that I took one way and you took the other. I doubt that’s “pretty revealing” since you weren’t able to say what that actually reveals. You have a habit of speaking for others when they’ve already spoken for themselves. I didn’t see common sense say his comment was tongue in cheek but you feel confident in speaking for him that it was and for others that they were intentionally using obvious hyperbole. I’d say your habit of doing that is “pretty revealing”. SWAT maybe be over utilized. I don’t know and haven’t read studies that would prove that is anything more than a media driven opinion. This should go without saying but I’m not on duty. I do not work for YOU. We are having an exchange of ideas as equals and to attempt to play the “I pay your salary” nonsense with someone over the internet… Read more »
Poetrooper:
If I had been angry, I might have said something along the lines of “Bull. Fucking. Shit.” You may recognize that as being a quote from someone who agrees with you. It would also appear belligerent and intolerant of opposing views. If you could point out anything I’ve said that would be me attempting to intimidate, I’d love to see it. Also, if people are going to use comments on the internet from an anonymous person to help shape their views of their local police….does that even make any sense to anyone?
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say in your second paragraph. I’ve never attempted to justify belligerent enforcement and I’m pretty sure we have very differing views on what constitutes minimal infractions of the law. Per your main article using the case of Monroe Isadore, you have written an entire article when the facts of the case have not even been fully established or investigated. That sir, is a perfect example of a knee jerk reaction based on previous bias and emotional response. That is not what is needed. It does nothing but create divisions, add to pre established biases and does nothing to help the situation
Please continue Mike, you’re making my point for me far more easily than I can make it myself.
Cheers. 🙂
I highly doubt that as you seem to take a rather strong position, only to back away from it in your next post.
Part of the reason I have become increasingly concerned about police behavior is that I keep seeing incidents like this pop up-https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3c1qAMqtFY
You can say that those things reflect media sensationalism, but if the cops themselves hadn’t done those things, they wouldn’t be an issue. I hear cops that I drill with make outrageous statements about how they deal with the public or those in custody-a minority of them to be sure, maybe 20%, but a sizable minority all the same.
68W58:
I have at no time attempted to deny that things like that happen or have I attempted to justify them. I personally do not think police misconduct is on the rise in comparison to the past. I just think it is being brought to light more these days with easier access to cameras, the internet, willingness of witnesses to come forward and other factors.
The media sensationalism comes in to play in how it shapes public opinion. For every story of misconduct, there are countless more of officers doing there jobs honorably. Every time one officer pulled the trigger, there are many others that didn’t. Even in the story mentioned above, the first officers on scene were shot at through the door and I didn’t see any reports that they returned a volley at the man. They retreated to safety and called for back up.
I don’t think cops talking tough is any different than soldiers and Marines. I could be phony tough BS or how they cope with stress. Everyone deals with that stuff differently. I’d take it with a grain of salt and not extrapolate that on to 20% of all cops.
I never said I extrapolate that minority onto all cops, I’ve said that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, bring that up to cops and they almost invariably go on the defensive-that’s troubling. Soldiers and Marines have no authority over American citizens (and before we go overseas we are well trained in COIN so that we understand how our actions impact the civilian population), joes occasionally talk tough, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard a joe brag about how they “walked on someone’s face”, like I heard a guy who was a sheriff’s department jailer once admit.
From a citizen’s perspective dealing with the cops is a little like playing Russian Roulette-most of the time there is no problem, but every so often you are going to have to deal with that minority who are apt to abuse their authority, and you can’t be sure at the outset if you’re dealing with officer friendly or Vic from the Shield.
Still, since you mentioned cameras Mike, there was a study recently which found that when cops wear cameras there is a reduction both in the use of force by police and complaints against police. Do you think this is a worthwhile reform?
http://www.policefoundation.org/content/body-worn-cameras-police-use-force
I couldn’t tell from your reply whether your 20% was in regards to all or just the ones you’ve met. I’m not sure why you would be surprised or troubled that a good cop would be defensive when you start associating them with bad ones. Not that you are intending to do so but in discussions like these, broad brush strokes are the norm. I’d be more troubled if they didn’t stand up against that.
I’m not sure what COIN has to do with LEO’s.
I’ve heard plenty of tough talk before and there are plenty of books I can recommend in which Marines and Soldiers make jokes about death and destruction. It doesn’t bother me and is an understandable coping mechanism in both the military and law enforcement. Then again, we live in a society that was appalled that service members were writing offensive comments on bombs.
I fully support cameras on cops, in cars and in jails. It backs up the good cops and incriminates the bad ones. It also protects against spurious lawsuits and complaints. I’ve never understood cops getting upset at being filmed in the course of their duties in public. I was never doing anything that I was worried would be seen.
@68. Mike: I re-read many of the comments early this morning and, quite frankly, they alternatively pissed me off or greatly disappointed me. Yours was not among them. I opted not to add a comment, figuring that it would be to no avail to tell That Guy that he sounded like a butt-hurt baby with a huge grudge. And I, too, marveled at the spotlight trained on your comments when, in addition to the one you quoted, there was this from him: “Treat a cop well and they’re still an asshole.” Another wants to charge the police officers who shot the 107 year-old guy with murder. Then there are all the anecdotal, entirely one-=sided, if not fictitious stories of, “I knew a cop who…” or “One time….” As if no one knows anything police officers do that is kindly, forgiving, or decent. In sum, it’s no damn wonder that the police community is tight-knit with support like this.
I’m not sure why you would be surprised or troubled that a good cop would be defensive when you start associating them with bad ones. I’m pretty sure that’s not exactly what I did, it seems to me that I brought the subject up and, instead of saying something like “yes, it’s a problem and we have to do a better job of getting rid of the bad ones” I got excuses like how I didn’t understand all the pressure of the job or something similar. And that’s as may be, but if you’re going to take a job where you exercise some degree of authority over the populace, you had better expect to be answerable to them. Don’t make excuses, there’s a sizable segment of the population who thinks that there’s a problem. Address it one way or the other-do a better job of getting rid of bad cops, change training about how you interact with the public or do a better job of explaining how you are asked to do deal with inherently contradictory conditions, but understand that the public has every right to question how you operate. I’m not sure what COIN has to do with LEO’s. COIN has to do with how we are trained to deal with the public in areas where we operate. There is Army doctrine that teaches us to be aware of how our interactions influence the public’s perception of us and how this impacts the larger objective of winning the war. I know what Army doctrine is in this regard, I’m concerned about how police training, or individual departments address this issue-if at all. I’ve heard plenty of tough talk before and there are plenty of books I can recommend in which Marines and Soldiers make jokes about death and destruction. To whatever extent that this is true the military realizes that such attitudes are counterproductive and takes steps to minimize them-hence COIN. I’ve deployed with soldiers who had to kill people, I’ve dealt with the bodies of Joes and Foes alike. It was never pleasant and I’ve never heard anyone… Read more »
Hey, here’s an idea for revised police policy: No discretion in enforcement. That’s right. There are entirely too many folks who are let off the hook for crimes, be they traffic or otherwise. The officer can say, “Sorry say but I cannot just give you a warning” or “Sorry ma’am but I had no choice but to arrest your 11-year old.” Yeah, there you go. One size fits all. That will reduce the opportunity for many confrontations. And the citizens can then take the matter up where it belongs: With the elected officials in the executive branch of Federal, state, or local government.
@75 2/17: I think that’s why I jumped in to defensive mode. I’m honestly shocked that a mil-blog that regularly addresses the “angry, violent vet” stereotype when the media seeks to make in an issue in some instance of violence, is so eager to pile on cops in the same media sensationalized situation.
Then there are all the anecdotal, entirely one-=sided, if not fictitious stories of, “I knew a cop who…” or “One time….” As if no one knows anything police officers do that is kindly, forgiving, or decent. In sum, it’s no damn wonder that the police community is tight-knit with support like this.
Well, again, that’s as may be, but the old saying is that one “aw $hit” wipes out 10 “attaboys”. It’s anecdotal, sure, but it often reflects how we were treated individually. And, no, you don’t get any credit for being “decent”. Decent is the default condition and is expected of all of us when we interact with others. Not all of us live up to it, but it’s one thing to be a jerk and another thing entirely to be a jerk under color of authority.
@76
You apparently ignored the next sentence where I said I didn’t think you were intending to do that. I would also like you to quote where in that post I was giving excuses about the pressures of the job. It appears you are making that up out of whole cloth. I don’t see anywhere that I made excuses for anything. If you want to have a cordial conversation, that’s great but at least be honest when doing so.
Even with COIN training, it doesn’t appear the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan have a favorable opinion of the military does it?
Read Generation Kill. Plenty of tough talk there. It happens and I think we both know that.
Mike-I never said or implied that you did those things, I was explaining that those were things that happened when I talked about those issues with cops-which was the context of the point that I was making. Don’t frivolously accuse those who disagree with you of dishonesty.
COIN may or may not be working, but the military is making the effort to try and deal with the civilian population fairly. The fact that it may or may not be working has nothing to do with whether or not it is the right thing to do-does it.
@78. Most of the regulars, you see, are staying away from this thread. Some of the them are in law enforcement, others retired P/Os. And that’s fine. That’s their call. I’ll make this point and then probably join them. (No guarantees that I won’t return.) There are myriad systems in place to address police misconduct, including abusive behavior and what used to be called ‘police brutality.’ In local areas, many sheriffs are elected and answerable directly to the electorate. In ALL cases, our elected officials are the go-to people for issues relating to policy and purchases of such things as weaponry and armor. If someone has a beef and fears that the country is heading towards a militarized police state, then Deputy Fife is not the one to hear your gripe. Contact your elected officials, write letters to the editor, and voice your concerns. That’s the way our system was designed and, overall, it works pretty well.
@that guy, you are the reason that the cops become so calloused and adopt the “us vs them” attitude. i have not had to draw my weapon since i joined the police force, but there are reasons to do so. i fully agree that the police are becoming overly militarized, and there are too many of them that are gung ho, but a lot of them are just tired of being shit on by those they are genuinely trying to protect and serve. last fall i responded to a fire alarm at a frat house being pulled. it wasnt any real issue, just had to have an officer respond so the fire department could shut it off. i wasnt hassling any of the frat kids at the party. i didnt get onto them about alcohol on campus or the fact that half their frat is underaged. i did still get to hear the yelling from the windows of “fuck the police” and getting called a “pig”. ya see, nothing anyone says to me will get under my skin, life is too short to care about some random person’s words that has no impact on your life, but many (the vast majority of people) dont feel that way. cops become ass holes because they get tired of hearing that bull shit day in and day out. because guys like That Guy want to perpetuate the gangster rap stereo type that we are the bad guys. we do a necessary job trying to keep the general public safe. do you know how much harder that job is when morons like That Guy want to paint us as evil villains? stupid shit happens some times, and many police are overly gung ho, but these incidents are extremely rare. there have been 2 i can think of this year with over zealous swat teams killing very old men, but those incidents are few and far between. none of them should ever happen, but stupid happens. it cant be eliminated. compounding that stupid with the moronic ramblings of That Guy and his ilk, doesnt help… Read more »
Air cav, you are right, i stayed away from this thread for a while, but saw something that i just couldnt ignore. most people posting here are not names i recognize.
@81 68W58
I don’t think it is frivolous when it was after quoting something I said to take that as a response to ME with no clarification on who you were actually arguing against.
Law Enforcement has been doing community outreach for decades. Mid Night basketball leagues, youth outreach and gang intervention, Community Oriented Policing models, Citizen review boards, citizen academies and others I don’t even know about.
My point with my COIN question that you can do everything in your power to make things better and it still doesn’t convince people when they have the attitude that “one “aw $hit” wipes out 10 “attaboys””. That’s a fair standard for an individual or department but not for an entire profession.
2/17 & Smitty:
Agree with you both on most points. I’m a regular lurker, rare poster. Probably should have kept it that way.
@80-Cav: “If someone has a beef and fears that the country is heading towards a militarized police state, then Deputy Fife is not the one to hear your gripe. Contact your elected officials, write letters to the editor, and voice your concerns. That’s the way our system was designed and, overall, it works pretty well.”
Would that by any chance include writing about the issue on this and other websites to provoke discussion as I did? It’s obvious from the many comments here and at American Thinker that this is an issue of considerable concern to the citizenry and that the LEO side is rather sensitive about. That is, if Mike’s numerous comments are to be considered reflective of the LEO viewpoint. Frankly, I would have preferred to hear from more LEO’s, serving and retired, rather than so much from a single source who so obviously relishes the debate.
As I stated in my piece, I’m no enemy of the law enforcement community. I’m very supportive of maintaining the domestic tranquility. However, as the comments here and at AT have revealed, I’m not alone in my concerns that something is wrong with the present militaristic course on which local law enforcement is headed.
Mike-your quote, which I used in my post 76, was directly in response to my post 73 when I clearly used the word “they”. If you can’t follow the conversation clearly, that’s on you-not me.
Also, when I was responding to AirCav with my “one aw $hit” wipes out 10 “attaboys” comment, I was employing a rule of thumb and a pretty good one, like it or not the actions of the bad apples in your profession reflect on other officers, it makes citizens uncertain of what kind of cop they are dealing with.
And if whatever you’re doing is failing to improve your standing with the public-do something else. I am hardly the only one on this thread to point out problems with police behavior. Maybe you think there’s not a problem, but it seems to me that there’s growing public frustration with how cops regularly treat citizens and that ought to concern good cops.
68W58:
Your inability to be clear is not my fault. Sorry. If you’d like to continue to argue over who misread who, go for it. I’m moving on.
I don’t deny that that rule of thumb exists and in many cases is a fair standard for individuals and even departments as a whole. I’m saying it’s not fair or honest for all cops. Just like this site has many times spoken out against the crazy vet stereotype. I doubt you’d be happy to have any of the numerous vets and service members who have committed horrendous crimes used to paint you in a bad light.
I’m not sure how many times I have to say this before you and a few others actually acknowledge it and understand it but I’ll do so again and put it in all caps. I DO NOT DENY THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH POLICE BEHAVIOR. I’ve only contended that it’s not as wide spread as some seem to think.
Those programs are not failing for those who seek them out to become educated about an issue instead of believing everything a sensationalized media sells them.
PT, this thread went anti LEO fast so most of us stayed out of it.
most LEOs are opposed to how militarized the police force is becoming, but those that are getting the top notch equipment that rivals stuff i had in an airborne infantry battalion, arent your every day police unit. they are big cities with leftist leaders that want an army at their disposal. your typical municipal police (city, county, etc.) doesnt have that stuff at their disposal. A lot of people want to make these isolated incidents appear to be more wide spread than they are.
Hilarious!
Your inability to be clear is not my fault. Sorry. If you’d like to continue to argue over who misread who, go for it. I’m moving on.
Mike, I showed you-in context where you made the mistake. And it would be one thing if you hadn’t accused me of dishonesty or if you would have simply apologized, instead you went back on the offensive.
Right now I’m trying to deal with a man-a cop-who refuses to admit he made a mistake. A mistake that anyone who reads this thread can plainly see. Don’t you think that might reflect on my opinion that cops can be arrogant or hard-headed.
And the crazy vet stereotype is not analogous-if a “crazy vet” is giving me crap-if he exists-I, or anyone else, can always tell him to piss off-I can’t do that with a cop who is having a bad day and takes it out on me when he pulls me over for speeding. The media concern over crazy vets is mostly driven by the lefty narrative, but even if a citizen does encounter a crazy vet it means nothing, you can’t say that about bad cops.
Militarized Police Forces should be a concern to everyone, everywhere.
The police follow their orders, and follow them as the law dictates whether the law is intelligent, sensible, or even reasonably enforceable for the majority (think prohibition).
There is enough opportunity for malfeasance when the law of the land is fairly liberal, when the laws become ever more restrictive and the police ever more heavily armed with a corresponding lack of civil liberties and protection for same it’s not hard to see how the US resembles a third world nation more every passing day.
The model of army style police forces fits well with most South American governments, and the various sh1tholes of the world. While we all understand the necessity of specialized units to respond to higher threat levels, these things often become self-fulfilling prophecies. Having more weapons, more training, more capability and not using any of that doesn’t usually sit well with the members of those units or the folks who have to explain the budget for those units. Perhaps instead of waging war in third world sh1thole without a plan, maybe the military could guard our own borders and the police for the most part could remain the police who know the residents of the areas they are tasked with protecting.
The police in my neighborhood change so often they have no idea who lives where or who even belongs in the neighborhood as a consequence of their rotations. When the police know the neighborhood and the folks in the neighborhood know the police the us vs them mentality softens some on both sides in my experience. When no one knows the police and the police don’t know the neighbors everybody is suspicious. That can’t end well for the most part.
It all contributes to a justice system that has become more about sustaining budgets and producing product than a service designed to expedite the laws of the land. The police, the lawyers, the judges and the criminals all play their bit parts and meanwhile nothing of consequence gets done to resolve major issues in urban wastelands.
68W58:
Sorry. No one is working off your flow chart showing how you reference comment 73 in comment 76 about comment 82. Clear as mud buddy but again, that proves some point in your mind. Good to know. I could point out that you ignored what I said to get defensive about extrapolating personal experiences on to the whole group, but I let it go as it was not all that important to the discussion.
Speaking of hard heads, I’m not sure it’s possible to get a point through that head of yours. The existence of the “crazy vet” is NOT THE POINT. That many in the public believes they exist and are a danger is the point. The fact this website attempts to educated and disprove that is the point.
As far as dealing with cops….don’t speed and you wont have to deal with the mean cop “-if he exists-“
Given your inability to follow a simple conversation I have to wonder about how well you faithfully present evidence in a complicated case. Ah well, we were having a perfectly straightforward disagreement until you felt compelled to accuse me of dishonesty.
“Crazy vets” don’t have any authority over the public, the same can’t be said of bad cops-that’s the point. Crazy vets are a chimera, bad cops are a cause for real concern-to whatever extent they exist.
And I don’t claim that I wasn’t wrong to speed, only that I didn’t deserve to be treated like $hit because of it, but I guess in your mind his behavior is irrelevant so long as I was in some way wrong.
@98 Mike:
Part of the perception problem is the mid-boggling level of administrative clumsiness. Lowering hiring standards (the best predictor of misconduct)? Arguing that, i.e., someone CCW is per se probably cause since “95% of people are not licensed to CCW,” or that sniff dogs are “a good source of revenue”?
Or, worse yet, having your SWAT commander publicly say, “SWAT operators should swathe ourselves in a cloak of mysteriousness… operating without the need for recognition”* just the Sixth Circuit has in oral argument (and later, in writing) just fucking chastised a neighboring masked tactical team for their approach to “operating without the need for recognition”: Hiding, then lying (under oath?) about their identities after a botched raid? Seriously?
*Just one example of an article that is breathtaking in its stupidity.
http://www.policeone.com/SWAT/articles/6385683-Police-militarization-An-argument-for-black-helicopters/
I think maybe you should re-read your first paragraph and then see if you can look yourself in the mirror and think you are being honest here.
Still missing the point. Well I don’t have any crayons to draw you a picture so you may have to phone a friend to explain it to you.
You could say the public has no need to fear “crazy vets” (I 100% agree) but when they see names like Itzcoatl Ocampo, Tymarc Warren, Eddie Ray Routh and John Needham in the news, they may not believe you. For many, no amount of reason will sway them from that…much like I’m dealing with now.
Back to your dishonesty, I didn’t say a cop can treat you anyway they wish or a speeder deserves to be treated like shit did I?
umm the hard charging cop angle is played up by media to sell their rags. they sensationalize stories and vilify cops because it makes them a buck. id like to see you come do our job and see how you like it. it doesnt matter what we do, we will always be the most hated profession in America. rap lyrics praise those who attack cops and claim that talking to us is a mortal sin, then people like you attack us when we are unable to solve crimes when witnesses refuse to give any information. how long can you kick a dog before he growls back? you want to kick the cops, but get pissed if they finally snap at you? and your bitch is a speeding ticket, something you wouldnt get if you werent speeding! so we are wrong because we are trying to do our job and more wrong for doing it when you break the law. one incident out of 10 million actions involving the police, means that we are all evil and the bad guys.
i saw a tuesdays with claymore article from DU that sounded a lot like what you are preaching. it claimed that parents should tell their kids not to talk to or trust the cops. that cops are the bad guys and that from the time a child is small, they should be instilled with fear and distrust of the cops. but i must ask, who will you run to when that child is kidnapped? when you are robbed blind? when your wife is shot?
in short, 68W58, go to hell. i want to know if you would have made these same statements about me ( a cop you hate so much) 8 years ago when i was an airborne infantry E-5 with a Ranger tab? or did i just become the bad guy when my uniform turned blue?
JohnC:
The level of training for supervisors in my department is absolutely pathetic. I’m amazed that a Marine E-4 attends about 3 weeks of training in Corporals Course after promotion while supervisors in my department have some kind of week long training in a local hotel meeting room.
In special assignments such as SWAT, prior experience is usually looked for as a cost cutting measure. So a former Ranger would be much more attractive to SWAT than a regular Patrolman.
I can’t speak any higher than my department but hiring standards have gone up, not down. I’m not sure where you are getting that information.
Again, I do not defend misconduct.
Mike-I’m not the one who needs a “flow chart” to follow a simple conversation. I gave you plenty of time to walk back or apologize for accusing me of dishonesty and you declined-it’s fair game after that.
What other meaning should I take from “don’t speed and you wont have to deal with the mean cop”. Well golly, Mike, I try not to, but occasionally miss a sign (hey, localities never set up speed traps as a source of revenue do they Mike?), the least I can ask is that you, or your fellow cops don’t treat me like an a$$hole when you pull me over.
Quit bringing up the “crazy vet”, it’s a non-sequitur: if the larger public thinks I’m “crazy” and avoids me because of it, that’s nothing to me (especially since the public at large has a very high opinion of Joes despite the best efforts of the left). Vets as a class don’t seem to mind explaining to the public who we are and what we’re about, it helps that there are almost none among our number who take out their everyday frustrations on members of the public, but then we don’t have any authority to do that, which is the point.
Smitty-“go to hell”, that’s nice. I’ve pointed out what I think the problem with police behavior is and was having a perfectly straightforward disagreement, until Mike said I was dishonest. Anyway, I’m glad to see how you respond to criticism, glad you don’t wear the same uniform as me anymore.