I've been thinking: are the police militarised?

[Alpha]

You must have noticed news recently about the protests surrounding the case of Michael Brown in the United States. Shot to death—fairly or unfairly according to your perspective—by a policeman.

I don't want to get into that debate, really. I've been thinking more about the protests, and how geared up the police seem to get in response to them. I've been thinking about the right to bear arms apparently enshrined in the American Constitution. I remember Sasquatch telling me on these very forums that the intention behind the right to bear arms is essentially two fold: firstly, to have the right to protect one's life and property from the violence and compulsion of others, and secondly for citizens to retain the ability to overthrow a despotic government should one ever arise. That's what's behind those citizen militias I've read about in the past.

But looking at photos of the police equipment used at these protests*, how can that second justification apply any longer? I guess my question is: do you think the police are becoming too militarised where you live? If so, is this justified? If not, why do you not think so?

* That some chose to degenerate into riots... although I've heard suspicion they were agent provocateurs or outsiders who wanted a riot for the sake of it.

Food for thought: Ferguson police: a stark illustration of newly militarised US law enforcement | US news | The Guardian

EDIT: can't seem to delete the accidentally thumbnailed attachments.

[Rowan]

What, you want police to walk around in their underwear when people are trashing and burning down buildings? Nice example of the caliber of community representing Michael Brown.

"* That some chose to degenerate into riots... although I've heard suspicion they were agent provocateurs or outsiders who wanted a riot for the sake of it."

Dont think by inserting this that excuses any behaviour. The majority of people were pillaging their own community.

[Alpha]

A straw-man and a lie, nice start, Rowan.

What, you want police to walk around in their underwear when people are trashing and burning down buildings?

Of course not. And yes, if police were expecting a riot, having some portion of them wearing riot gear seems perfectly reasonable. The police deserve to have equipment that keeps them safe, and no expense should be spared for them. But don't you think dressing up for battle—they literally used surplus military equipment—provokes a certain type of reaction?

Today I went to a Christmas parade. There were police wearing Santa hats and handing out candy. People smiled at them. The actions and behaviour of the police can easily provoke reactions from the community. In Ferguson, they were ready for Iraq. How can you expect a peaceful response to that?

The majority of people were pillaging their own community.

That is simply not true. The vast majority of people protested peacefully. That just doesn't make for good photos on the front page, I suppose.

[Cool, thanks for keeping on topic, Rowan.]

[01habbo]

Where I live it's too quiet for the police to become military like that. I feel I'm lucky in that way to live somewhere peaceful. At big events in the town or any big protest there a few police around in their regular uniform but nothing over the top.

However, if we were to talk about the major cities in the UK my opinion would still be no, if a riot gets out of hand I would feel safe that Police has this equipment to protect the public. It's always depends though on how it is used, if it is abused then obviously I would disagree in the police having it and would think they are too military. However, in the UK as a whole I think the police use the equipment sensibly especially after the riots that took place all over England a year or so ago.

It does sadden me though to see countries not as fortunate and to see the Police abuse their position.

[Heartless Angel]

Not really. It'd be stupid not to be geared for war as a cop when a riot started by people pissed off at cops was about to break loose. They may have access to military gear, but they're not soldiers. They weren't trained like soldiers, they don't fight like soldiers, and they don't wage war like soldiers. And I doubt most would try if ordered. As much bad media representation as they get, most cops around are decent normal people. Seldom have I ever disagreed with the decision of a cop who killed a criminal.

[Alpha]

Not really. It'd be stupid not to be geared for war as a cop when a riot started by people pissed off at cops was about to break loose. They may have access to military gear, but they're not soldiers. They weren't trained like soldiers, they don't fight like soldiers, and they don't wage war like soldiers. And I doubt most would try if ordered. As much bad media representation as they get, most cops around are decent normal people. Seldom have I ever disagreed with the decision of a cop who killed a criminal.

I'm sure there were a minority of people, perhaps a sizeable minority, who were keen for a riot. The police should be prepared for that. They too have families, and they deserve to be able to go home and see them after a day's work. But put yourself in the shoes of someone who wanted to protest peacefully, as is your right, and in some cases your civic duty. If I saw police dressed like that, I wouldn't even be willing to protest peacefully. It's chilling. It means that those who remain are more likely to be those in a combative state of mind. It filters out the "good" protesters and leaves the rioters. Then people sitting watching at home go, "Look at those pesky protesters! Damaging stores!" It becomes hard to empathise with an otherwise worthy cause, when all you see are the negative elements.

I suppose my point is that militarised equipment is probably good for the safety of the police... but I'd wager it actually provokes violent protests, rather than stymies them. This probably contributes to more and more protesters becoming frustrated, that they can't seem to get their moderate message out without being treated like looters. The good get lumped in with the bad. The actions of the police provoke negative reactions from the protesters, and in turn the protesters' movement is damaged through no real fault of its own. The Watts Riot was triggered by something small and just... but quickly spiralled out of control largely in part due to the actions of the police. The parallel between that and recent events is actually quite stunning.

But then again this may also be a matter of perception: being a consumer of media, I only really get to see what most people are going to click on. Fires and guns and deaths are more exciting than 200 people gathering in a town square with placards.

[Heartless Angel]

Probably for the best that it deters the good protestors. I'd rather they put down their signs and go home disappointed than be outside in the middle of shit when all Hell breaks loose. The bad ones were there and ready to riot anyways.

[Rowan]

Nah, the cops should have worn santa hats and handed out candy canes to all the violent protesters. What the liberal hippy little bitches seem to forget is that policeman are people too, with familes and children. They elect to work a job that puts them in danger everyday. They deserve all the protection and respect the community can give them.

And here we are debating about what clothing cops should wear to spare the feelings of some over-emotional libtards.

Rowan: "Fact fact fact"
hippy/lib: "If that's true then how do you explain my feelings?"

all of this rebellion against authority, don't kids grow out of this shit when theyre 18 or whatever?

I suppose my point is that militarised equipment is probably good for the safety of the police... but I'd wager it actually provokes violent protests, rather than stymies them. This probably contributes to more and more protesters becoming frustrated, that they can't seem to get their moderate message out without being treated like looters

It is difficult for me to adequately express how vehemently I detest this thought process. You will stop at nothing to shift blame, make excuses for people (protestors) and insist that bad behaviour is the result of anything other than the people who are responsible for it. Its a common pattern with people who share your views, I've noticed. People dont spawn molotive cocktails and weapons when they seen police in 'militirized' uniforms, they tend to leave the house with them. And I think it was a good decision that they were organised in a 'militiristic' fashion as if they had not been, one of those poor innocent bastards doing their jobs may have got hurt by scumbag protestors. I have no goddamn sympathy for these ****ing pigs and neither should you.

Now you've shown your proganda style images of police intimidation, now Ill show mine.























Oh and to answer your question:

No.

[Lucavi]

You've been thinking, Alpha?

No, Rowan?



I think you both need a much deeper, more intimate and candid look into the world of Law Enforcement the world over, not just in America. Police are extremely militarized. So much so that it is becoming incredibly alarming more and more every year. The mentality, social structure and etiquette, the politics and training, it's all militarized. Police organizations in America have evolved to be as close to a militarized unit as realistically possible.

This is an issue people aren't even ignoring out of respect and admiration for the men and women who protect our cities every day any more. It's become a serious problem we're now forced to accept and look at. Law Enforcement is a dark world, tore apart by light and dark. It's noble and justified in it's intent and origins, but it has become corrupted by a filthy underbelly of dark, horrific secrets the common American refuses to face, and one cannot blame them.

But the real issue here is not the militarization of law enforcement (which is still a huge issue), but the racism seeded deep within it's ranks, mentality, and tradition. I'm not talking personal opinion, but rather historic fact, dating back to it's creation. American law enforcement is one of the most racist groups of people in the history of the modern world.


But this is a clear and present issue, and it's being examined and worked on as we speak. Expect huge changes begin to develop within American Law Enforcement in the next 5-10 years.

[Rowan]

I think besides alpha's view on a militiristic law enforcement being intimidating to innocent civilians, I honestly dont know how it could possibly be viewed as a bad thing? Police SHOULD be intimidating. If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about. If you will try and refer me to recent incidents where people were killed, may I remind you that assualting an officer might lead to these things. Police are people too and when in a life threatening situation, they may possibly make a decision in the heat of the moment that might result in a fatality. Long story short - Dont assualt ****ing policeman.

I live in a country where police are soft. I wish the police in australia were more like police in the USA.




Looks like the nutbush.

[Clint]

I understand the reasons why police forces would want to become more "militarized." I'm not even sure militarized is the right word. Police are behaving more and more like SWAT. It's paramilitary.

I will use the American police force as an example, because I'm American. This year alone, 114 officers have been killed in the line of duty. That is a 28% increase since last year. The fatality rate for officers killed in the line of duty is steadily above the 100 mark year after year. These men and women are being killed for doing their sworn duty, and that's simply unacceptable.

Police have become more paramilitarized for their own protection, for one. It's safer to be better armed and better protected than the people you're arresting. A display of force can make a dangerous suspect think twice about pulling a gun. That's a SWAT tactic, not a military tactic. SWAT tactics deal in forcing suspects to surrender.

Crime in America has become more and more severe. You have riots and civil unrest in areas over the shooting of a criminal who was attempting to murder an officer. You have irrational and dangerous people causing mass panic and chaos because they interpret everything as racist. The world is becoming increasingly more dangerous, and because of such, police forces need to better equip and train themselves, or more officers will die. They have to evolve with the changing of the times. They aren't more militarized because they're denying people freedom. They're becoming more militarized because that's apparently the natural evolution of law enforcement. If people want something a bit less severe, they need to calm the hell down and stop breaking the law.

Paramilitary style policing does not infringe on personal freedoms or civil liberties, it simply adds an extra layer of protection for law-abiding citizens in an increasingly dangerous society.

[Odin1199]

Nah, the cops need all the arms, training and SWAT forces they can get. Do you know how much they have to deal with drug related gangs and other crap? They have to be prepared and ready to storm into any conflict. The streets are brutal in every city.

[OutlawTorn]

You're incredibly bias, Rowan.

Any cops here?

I've been a Canadian soldier for a decade. I've been to combat, I've done the peace keeping and humanitarian missions. As a soldier, understanding my job, as opposed to the job of civilian Law Enforcement, I'm speaking objectively from a justified perspective. I understand this because one of my best friends is a cop who lives and serves in the US. Beyond that, my mother's uncle was a decorated member of the RCMP.

Police are too militarized, because that's not they're job.


Be careful what you wish for, Rowan. The reason police in America have become that militarized is due to the level of violence, crime, and the level of risk that can be found in the streets of America. There are roughly 270 MILLION civilian firearms in America... Everyone has a gun. Innocent, upright folks walk around strapped, simply to level the playing field; for security.

If you had cops like that down below, that beautiful country of yours would be rotting with filth, sin, violence, crime and death.


That really what you want for Christmas, or are you just talking out your ass to support something you personally feel strongly about?

[Rowan]

Dude, you post from 2 different accounts. you lose all credibility.

Im not sure why you're asking me why I want police to have the best protection possible. They put our lives on the line so I think they should be as well protected as possible. Dont also assume that Australia 'this beautiful country of mine' as a whole is a wonderful place to live if you dont live here. It is becoming progressively worse and worse and its thanks to people like you complaining about police being too 'rough' or 'militirized' that crime is becoming increasingly more rampant. I also dont understand your correlation between militirized police being the reason for higher crime rates. It seems to me that the police are only mobilizing in such fashion because the crime rates are going up and people are becoming more agressive. I dont give a crap about your friends that are cops or that you're a soldier etc, you cannot use examples like this to place your opinion above someone elses, I also dont appreciate being spoken to like a child who doesn't know how lucky he is to live in 'this beautiful country of mine'.

Cops here are soft as hell, the courts are even softer. Maybe its cause us Aussies are just already so 'hard' to begin with?

[Alpha]

ID still has slightly higher standards than most other subforums. Posts that are at least 90% personal attacks/flaming are gonna get warned. Please engage with ideas not directly with people.

[Clint]

Be careful what you wish for, Rowan. The reason police in America have become that militarized is due to the level of violence, crime, and the level of risk that can be found in the streets of America. There are roughly 270 MILLION civilian firearms in America... Everyone has a gun. Innocent, upright folks walk around strapped, simply to level the playing field; for security.

Not everybody has a gun. 37% of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. So that's per-household, not per population. There are 270 million guns in America. That doesn't mean that 270 million people own guns.

The police aren't using military tactics. They're using more and more SWAT tactics, but as I said before, that's paramilitary. Organized similar to a military force, but most certainly not a military force.

You aren't American. You don't live here, therefore, what you state about crime is complete speculation. As an American, I can assure you, crime is present, but it doesn't conflict with day-to-day life, generally speaking. There's the situation in Missouri, where protests become violent, a different style of policing is necessary. Paramilitary style policing was used in order to attempt to regain control of unruly civilians, and in a situation like that, that was the right call.

Police are too militarized, because that's not they're job.

Their job is to serve and protect. If a more paramilitary style is necessary to accomplish this, then that is their job.

[OutlawTorn]

*sigh* -_-

A straw-man and a lie, nice start, Rowan.

So you just called Rowan a liar, and accused his opinions of being a straw-man...

ID still has slightly higher standards than most other subforums. Posts that are at least 90% personal attacks/flaming are gonna get warned. Please engage with ideas not directly with people.

... Sometimes I actually want to be deployed again; it's an excellent way to vent primordial frustration invoked by the likes of this shit.

If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about.

*Nuclear Facepalm* You lose all credibility for that one, my friend. (Truly speechless)

If you will try and refer me to recent incidents where people were killed, may I remind you that assualting an officer might lead to these things. Police are people too and when in a life threatening situation, they may possibly make a decision in the heat of the moment that might result in a fatality. Long story short - Dont assualt ****ing policeman.

... Civilians are people too, but when we feel threatened and commit murder, we're held responsible, and the steps are taken to investigate and determine whether it was justified or not.

But beyond common sense, Police do not have ultimate authority. In Order for a Cop to say, "Hands up, you're under arrest!" You must first Commit A Crime. Then the officer must have proof, or reasonable cause to investigate further. A cop in Victoria, Texas recently assaulted a 60-some year old man, tazzing him TWICE (He did not resist at all, only stood up for his innocence). It was over an expired vehicle registration... Which the man did not need by law, because he had a dealers permit. He had tried to explain this to the officer, but he would not listen.

If you have committed no crime, no officer in the world has the right to arrest, let alone lay 1 finger on you.

I have respect for the Law Enforcement field, and the courage of those men and women, but if any man ever tried to lay hands on me when I had done nothing wrong, I'd break his elbow, disarm and cuff his ass to his own squad car. I know my rights, and they protect me from being arrested until I've broken the law. I'll take the Assault on a Peace Officer charge in the name of my rights, because that's what people like me do. You know, the softy who took a 7.62x39 round to the shoulder in the name of your freedom and safety.

Not everybody has a gun. 37% of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun. So that's per-household, not per population. There are 270 million guns in America. That doesn't mean that 270 million people own guns.

Taken out of context for the sake of argument. Nice one, Champ.

Their job is to serve and protect. If a more paramilitary style is necessary to accomplish this, then that is their job.

That's a slogan written on cars, moron. Their job is to Enforce the Law, investigate and make justified, clean arrests, as well as keep the peace in certain situations such as protests, riots, etc.



What the **** is wrong with you people? Every time someone posts on this website (especially towards me), I lose a little more faith in the future of humanity.

[Alpha]

So you just called Rowan a liar, and accused his opinions of being a straw-man...

No, I said that he lied (not that he is a liar---as in, someone who consistently and habitually lies), and that his argument was in this instance logically fallacious. Neither of those things are aimed at Rowan's character, although I probably should have phrased that slightly better.

... Sometimes I actually want to be deployed again; it's an excellent way to vent primordial frustration invoked by the likes of this shit.

See, now this reads as if you're actually attacking my character. If you get three warnings in ID, you can't post here any more. Just FYI.

*Nuclear Facepalm* You lose all credibility for that one, my friend. (Truly speechless)

Try explaining why he loses credibility, in your opinion. For me, you neither gain or lose credibility for this statement, because you haven't actually expressed an opinion or justification on the subject.

... Civilians are people too, but when we feel threatened and commit murder, we're held responsible, and the steps are taken to investigate and determine whether it was justified or not.

But beyond common sense, Police do not have ultimate authority. In Order for a Cop to say, "Hands up, you're under arrest!" You must first Commit A Crime. Then the officer must have proof, or reasonable cause to investigate further. A cop in Victoria, Texas recently assaulted a 60-some year old man, tazzing him TWICE (He did not resist at all, only stood up for his innocence). It was over an expired vehicle registration... Which the man did not need by law, because he had a dealers permit. He had tried to explain this to the officer, but he would not listen.

If you have committed no crime, no officer in the world has the right to arrest, let alone lay 1 finger on you.

I have respect for the Law Enforcement field, and the courage of those men and women, but if any man ever tried to lay hands on me when I had done nothing wrong, I'd break his elbow, disarm and cuff his ass to his own squad car. I know my rights, and they protect me from being arrested until I've broken the law. I'll take the Assault on a Peace Officer charge in the name of my rights, because that's what people like me do. You know, the softy who took a 7.62x39 round to the shoulder in the name of your freedom and safety.

Holy content, Batman! Your post would have been better had it just contained this part.

That's a slogan written on cars, moron. Their job is to Enforce the Law, investigate and make justified, clean arrests, as well as keep the peace in certain situations such as protests, riots, etc.

Calling someone a moron is the definition of what you should not be doing if you want to make a good argument. I agree with the argument you express here, however. Every person killed by a police officer is by definition prejudicial. No one is guilty until they have been proven to be so by the courts. This is, naturally, a very hard thing to practice in all instances. A dude with a bomb is hardly going to wait to be arrested and tried in court. As a general rule, however, it is paramount. It's for this reason I do not support "beat cops" having access to firearms, only tasers. A taser should be sufficient to subdue a violent person in many cases. In the instances where the violent person has a firearm, specialist non-routine police can be called in. (In New Zealand, these are referred to as the Armed Offenders Squad. "Beat police" do have access to one firearm per patrol car, but this is kept in a locked safe inside the boot of their vehicle and is rarely used. I appreciate this is probably optimistic in the States. They key difference being, IMO, the simple % of people who actually own firearms.).In the specific instance of Michael Brown, a taser would have changed everything. The officer who killed Michael Brown stated that he didn't like wearing a taser, and only had a taser that did not have a dischargeable cartridge:

Wilson next recounts his thought process as he reached for a weapon. He considered using his mace, but at such close range, the mace might get in his eyes, too. He doesn't carry a taser with a fireable cartridge, but even if he did, "it probably wouldn't have hit [Brown] anywhere". Wilson couldn't reach his baton or his flashlight. So he went for his gun.

I'm no expert on tasers, but it can't be that hard to hit someone with one at close range. Moreover, before going further off this tangent: an officer's duty should be to make an arrest unless that is simply not possible, or someone's life is in danger. The recourse Police seem to make to violence, reflected in their get-ups, is truly concerning. In many cases it seems to trump the presumption of innocence.

What the **** is wrong with you people? Every time someone posts on this website (especially towards me), I lose a little more faith in the future of humanity.

Calling us stupid doesn't help with your argument that people shouldn't be calling people stupid.

[Rowan]

... Civilians are people too, but when we feel threatened and commit murder, we're held responsible, and the steps are taken to investigate and determine whether it was justified or not.

Why are you taking the attention away from the policeman? are you prejudiced or something? Michael was clearly the aggressor, and the person who felt threatened was the policeman.

But beyond common sense,

Nice one.

Police do not have ultimate authority. In Order for a Cop to say, "Hands up, you're under arrest!" You must first Commit A Crime. Then the officer must have proof, or reasonable cause to investigate further.

Cops dont have ultimate authority, noone is asserting that. What im trying to say is that we grant policeman a certain degree of rights because we aknowledge that their job is difficult and dangerous. You can spout as many examples of police brutality as you like, for each one I will give you an example of a police officer who DIED trying to die his/her job.

If you have committed no crime, no officer in the world has the right to arrest, let alone lay 1 finger on you.

Thats not true. There is a probable cause clause. Michael brown not only matched the description of the person involved in the armed robbery, he actually turned out to be the person who they were looking for. So wtf is your point in this scenario?

I have respect for the Law Enforcement field

Bullshit. You do not. Dont lie to try and gain credability for your weak arguments.

but if any man ever tried to lay hands on me when I had done nothing wrong, I'd break his elbow, disarm and cuff his ass to his own squad car.

Lol, you do realise that if you did this, police would be well within their rights to arrest you anyway? Do you know anything about law? (serious question)

I know my rights

Clearly not.

Their job is to blahblahblah

It seems like you're saying you know better than the police force about how to do their job? You just sound arrogant and its not helping your arguments.

What the **** is wrong with you people? Every time someone posts on this website (especially towards me), I lose a little more faith in the future of humanity.

Maybe its because you're full of it? I know this ID, but people like you need to be put in their place reguardless of forum. If everyone here posting towards you is having something negative to say, dont blame everyone else, and start looking at yourself. Its the logical thing to do. You went from being a somewhat nice dude to some kind of extremist. Im severely dissapointed.

[Clint]

Taken out of context for the sake of argument. Nice one, Champ.

I know when somebody is a genius when I have to explain what my comment was in reference to. You stated that there are 270 million guns in America, and then insinuated that everybody in America owned a gun. In the case of 270 million separate people owning guns, that would be an accurate statement, however, the reality is that only 37% of American citizens own guns. I was not taking anything out of context. I was simply correcting you.

That's a slogan written on cars, moron. Their job is to Enforce the Law, investigate and make justified, clean arrests, as well as keep the peace in certain situations such as protests, riots, etc.

.

Their job is to protect and serve the public. They are to use as much force necessary to ensure their own safety, as well as the safety of others, whether that force is paramilitary or not.

[ZRO]

Honestly, in the area I live in, we don't see much for armed police. But given what the police who I've SEEN armed have been dealing with? I don't blame them one damned bit for having the gear. If I had to go deal with those crowds, I'd want that gear too. Yes, there are good cops, and there are bad cops, but for the most part (meaning not all the time due to bad cops, but most of the time) a cop who doesn't see you doing anything wrong WON'T DO ANYTHING TO YOU. So, unless you're associating with people who aren't a good idea ("protesters" for example), or doing things that you know (or at least SHOULD know) aren't exactly kosher, an officer isn't going to bother you! Amazing how this works! And yet, people continue to do things that they KNOW are wrong and/or illegal, and then wanna get confrontational if not outright violent when the police step in, as is their job.

And now, for the trigger to all of it, the infamous race card. The "Oh I get profiled because I'm black." Well, yeah, I can't say I blame the police for that thinking. And here's why.

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to this (yes, possibly not 100% accurate, as it is Wiki), blacks in 2010 only made up roughly 12.6% of the population. Definitely a minority, no arguments there. But here's where it gets tricky.

FBI — Table 43a

That is an FBI supplied table of arrest made in 2010, separated by race. Going by percentages on the right hand side.

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter? 48.7% were committed by blacks. 12.6% of the population. Nearly HALF of the murders. So either blacks are proving to have a FAR lower respect for life in general, or the whiteys that are committing murder are doing a HELL of a lot better job of hiding it.

Forcible rape. 31.8% committed by blacks. Again a much higher number than one should be seeing out of a 12% minority.

Robbery. 55% committed by blacks. Yikes.

Aggravated assault? 33.5%

The list goes on and on, and while yes, the majority of (most) crimes are committed by whites, whites make up 72% of the population in 2010. Logically speaking, if the numbers were even, they should be doing 72% of the crimes. And yet a rather large chunk out of nearly all of the different types of crimes listed, are being perpetrated by blacks. Is it any wonder that someone's going to have to take a different approach to dealing with them? There's a statistically MUCH higher chance of the black man deciding his "best" option is to cut and run, or shoot.

In conclusion, am I saying that blacks are inherently bad people? Not at all. I've known a good number of black people in my life, and quite honestly, the majority have been pretty cool people. But to just show up somewhere and have to deal with a MASS of people who are all black and are being whipped into a frenzy by people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (not to mention the "gentle giant's" own parents), I have NO qualms about having armed police involved. In fact, I applaud the decision. I will argue that police are too militarized when every time I get pulled over there's a gun pointed at me. So far though, at worst I've gotten "Do you know why I pulled you over?" In order to figure out if overall the police are too militarized, you'll have to first figure out how "militarized" your criminals are. Molotovs, gunshots, a FAR greater number of (wrongly) ticked off people bearing down on a significantly smaller number of Law Enforcement Officers. Only a few things outweight numbers. Superior strategy. Superior technology. Superior training. Police can only get so many helping hands in order to deal with things. And then they gotta deal with everyone else jumping their asses for being "too militarized."

Being "too militarized," or going home in a body bag. Which one would you pick? I know which one I would, and I don't blame the police for choosing it either.

[OutlawTorn]

Good god all mighty, I'm starting to hate the internet...


It's no revelation that a good majority of crime is committed by blacks. It doesn't take a google search to figure this out. what most people don't know is that this is a reality for a reason. Systemic racism and oppression is a very real, very present issue going back to the 60's.


American law enforcement agencies are the biggest, most well trained and equipped gangs in the world... This is a fact you either have to be sheltered, or delusional to miss. We all feel that shred of nagging guilt when we think about it, because not ALL cops are racist or corrupt. These are brave men and women who risk the possibility of losing their lives every day to enforce the law. But that doesn't erase the cold hard facts that slap you in the face every day if you look beyond your front door.

Wearing a gun on your hip doesn't give you the right to shoot people for no reason. Short of the CLEAR and IMMENANT threat towards your life, you are no allow to unbutton that holster... That's just reality, folks, whether YOU like it or not. There isn't massive, nation-wide change taking place right now because I'm wrong, because there isn't a serious issue at hand here...


It would be nice to pretend facts didn't exist, and the world operates strictly on my personal opinion and belief, god that would be bliss! But I live in a cold, dark place called reality... If I, as a soldier, were I to shoot an Afghani civilian in the face because he or she wouldn't listen to my commands, I would be held accountable. No questions asked. I'm a Canadian soldier, and that shit doesn't ****ing fly where I'm from. My job is to protect innocent civilians, NEVER to murder them!

That's the irony here. Cops are PEACE OFFICERS, by definition. Do some ****ing research, know before speaking (great practice). it's every cop's job to prevent murder, gun violence, and protect the citizens of their communities. When Freddy Grey was thrown into the back of a meatwagon, driven around, and neglected until his spinal cord was ultimately severed, they neglected their duty in every respect. Their job is to protect Freddy, not murder him, regardless of whether the law was broken... Being a criminal DOES NOT forfeit your human rights as an American Citizen.


The truth doesn't care what you think when you're dead wrong.


I told you months ago this was a serious, ****ed-up issue and we'd be seeing major changes on the horizon. Color me a ****ing prophet! I know more cops and know more about cops than you could have ever guessed when you've already made your minds up. Stop listening to what society expects of you, and form your own opinions based on the truth as it's made available to you.


EDIT: You'd all support police in abuse of power, if you felt it was keeping you safe from "the evil, degenerate minority scum!" But if someone you loved was hurt, or god forbid murdered by a cop with no justification, you might have a change of heart.

Must be nice to live in an ivory tower, unaware of the harsh reality of life...

[OutlawTorn]

This is a subject that really bothers me. It's not about militarization. This is so, ugh! There's no nice word for this. It's stupidity.

A tiny minority of criminals are packing "molotovs and shotguns!" Those types of people are in gangs, and they don't go out on the town packing these weapons, placing cops in a position where they have to contend with it. This is fantasy fuelled by playing too much GTA. Certainly things happen, but we don't equip our cops with assault rifles and grenades to patrol our communities. These criminals are posted up in houses and apartments, where those dangerous weapons are stored until they're needed, and to protect the spot. When cops go to these residences, they go in prepared, 10-20 men deep, and special teams like SWAT execute the takedown, not Constable Reggie, the cop you see patrolling the streets on his bicycle...

You all need to give these men and women FAR more credit!! It's never acceptable when an Officer dies in the line of duty, but they are LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS... They chose a field where they deal with criminals, sometimes armed and dangerous... When shit goes down, it's not a shock to the educated, sensible folks among us...

Here's where it gets REAL. Cops exist, in part, to protect the lives of EVERY citizen in their community. Because it is NEVER acceptable, or expected, or vindicated when a citizen is killed, by anyone. Short of Micheal Brown pulling a loaded gun, there is no excuse! Because the lives of cops are worth NO MORE or less than the citizens, black, Mexican, or white; upstanding Christian, or disenfranchised, homeless criminal. All life is sacred, and every suspect is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.


So why is it stupidity to "support the militarization of police?"

Let's step away together, collect ourselves and tackle this rationally.

By supporting the militarization of police, you're saying, "Ultimately, I don't mind that criminals possess molotovs and shotguns. I've accepted that it's a reality. Just as I'm okay with America being the worst country in the common wealth for gun control and violence. So long as my cops are equipped to compete effectively."

Well if that isn't stupidity, I'm starting to think I am a genius, Clint.


The issue is the level of violence in America. Equipping your cops better won't solve this. It will ultimately turn your streets into a war one as this pissing math escalates every time either side gets some new toys or tactics.

The issue is solving the root problem, but America has problems dealing with almost anything rationally and efficiently; that's a fact over 300 years of recorded history has cemented. You'd have to start by completely reforming every gun law and regulation in every town in every state from Hawaii to Alaska. Then you'd have to get all of those civilian firearms off of the streets. But the last time Uncle Sam took something from the people it didn't go so well.


Cops are not robots, or devine, perfect entities, incapable of flaw, error, bias, racism, discrimination, or unjustified fear perhaps fuelled by bias, error, or racism... They're human beings... And militarizing them is not the answer... Striving toward a world, and America where cops don't need weapons of any kind, is the only logical answer here.


Tell me I'm not alone in my desire for peace and life, not hatred and death.


And for African Americans don't need Al Sharpton to be pissed off. A few centuries of slavery and oppression can get the party started every time.

[Clint]

The only way to combat people with an increasingly dangerous arsenal of deadly weapons, as well as an increasing hostility for society as a whole, is a police force equipped to deal with that situation. An improperly equipped cop equals a dead cop. How many violent riots have there been based on the false implication of criminal intent by a police officer? The point of policing is to enforce the law, and civil unrest can't go unpunished. The result of civil unrest is a more militarized police force.

So the question should't be "Why are the police becoming so militarized?" The questions should be "Why doesn't anybody know the law?" Rioting is illegal. Looting is illegal. Arson is illegal. Destruction of property, assault, all illegal. Protesting is legal, but this country is burdened with a bunch of troglodytes who would rather implicate violence in order to get a point across, which is ironically precisely the opposite of how one should go about getting a point across.

A mob who can kill an entire police force is a mob that needs to be forced into submission by the police. SWAT tactics work, so that's the style of policing police are beginning to use more and more regularly, and that is wholly the result of increasing civil unrest. If I see a mob walking down my street, burning my car, and scaring my poor defenseless puppy faced dog, I'd rather have a militarized police force throwing tear gas at them, rather then allow them to continue.

[OutlawTorn]

I'm not going to power quote you like a shut-in with something to prove, but you raised some points I wanted to counter.

The only way to combat people with an increasingly dangerous arsenal of deadly weapons, as well as an increasing hostility for society as a whole, is a police force equipped to deal with that situation.

Every weapon is deadly. Your nation has prided itself on it's gun policies for over 100 years, now you're paying the [obvious] price. You can't build your home on the river bed and cry when that river floods.

To suggest criminals, rioters or gang members have a hostility towards society as a whole, is being very extreme. There's this mom and pop misconception (perpetuated by Hollywood films, rap music and middle-upper class word of mouth) that gang members and minority criminals are evil, sadistic, soulless monsters who get erect at the sight of the blood of innocent Caucasians. These are human beings. Yes, they make some bad choices, and on the extreme end of that spectrum, you have monsters, but they aren't plotting the demise of society. Most of these people have children, families, and surprisingly mundane values. What separates the average citizen from the average criminal, is the law. I respect the law as much as anyone here, but if breaking it meant feeding my child because there was no other way, I would without thinking twice.

These people have hostility toward the government who has been actively oppressing minorities for over 50 years. The CIA put more drugs on the streets in the hands of minorities than the average dealer will in his or her lifetime. (Fact, look into it. People too often focus on the result, ignoring the cause of problems. These rioters aren't evil, anarchistic terrorists getting together like a flash mob.)

An improperly equipped cop equals a dead cop.

Again, simply not true. If it were, there would be A LOT more dead cops turning up every shift.

The point of policing is to enforce the law, and civil unrest can't go unpunished. The result of civil unrest is a more militarized police force.

So the question should't be "Why are the police becoming so militarized?" The questions should be "Why doesn't anybody know the law?"

I know the law, very well, in fact. No one here has suggested any of the crimes you go on to list are acceptable, or legal.

The real question here should be, "Why is this a problem more or less unique to America?"

We don't have this problem in Canada (Mass racism, riots, young African-American males being brutalized and murdered almost on weekly basis), and out cultures are almost twins (save the gun-loving, casual violence, and social intolerance). Our criminals have heavy weapons too, but we don't feel the need to turn our Peace Officers into reserve soldiers. We don't even have the need.

We have plenty of minorities in Canada, from almost any country you can imagine. Our crime and violence rates are a joke compared to America.

A mob who can kill an entire police force is a mob that needs to be forced into submission by the police.

You're being so extreme your point is lost on it. Your law enforcement agencies are ahead of the curve, always have been, always will be. That's why the Cartel isn't taking over towns and executing cops in the streets. They know the odds are stacked firmly against them. That's why gangs and mobsters pay off cops, Mayors and judges, because they can't fight for their living any other way. It's suicide. You might get 1 or 2 beat cops before a SWAT sniper paints the sidewalk with your brain tissue from a police-issue helicopter.

You know why your agencies haven't ramped up to true paramilitary status yet? Because we all know they could... There's only one thing standing in the way of it, Clint. It's not fear, it's not funding, it's not means. It's the foresight to know what will happen if your America is realized.

Criminals in America are no better equipped than they were 10, 20, 30 years ago. They've always had automatic weapons, shotguns, and explosives. Going back to the old west, outlaws had revolvers and long guns, Sheriff's had the same. The difference?

"I think you broke the law, so I can kill you and I'm a hero, no questions asked. And even if! Even if I'm wrong, my outfit will back me up. And their word against a degenerate wins every goddamn time. But if you kill me, well you just went from a cell to the gallows, because my life is protected by this badge... I'm above the law I'm paid to enforce. Murder isn't murder for a cop, it's justice."

Let me tell you what your parents and professors wouldn't. If your cops army-up and start patrolling the streets like a military unit, cool unrest will increase, but how can you stage a riot when Big Blue 1 will come and shoot you all down? Can't... So it brews... Stews in darkness and silence... It builds up like a persistent pressure that will not be ignored.

Before long you have a domestic terrorism problem. Now bombs are being set off in government buildings and police HQs across the country (god forbid, like I feel bad entertaining this).

Let's not forget about the gangs... They're not going away because cops have better equipment now. This is a way of life... It's a sub-culture for most of these families, not an occupation. No, they've increased their tactics and equipment to compete and stay with the curve.

But now gangs have body armour, automatic weapons and explosives, only now it's Marshal Law in this bitch! We gotta actually use these AK's on the regular.

So now the cops are saying, "Damn! What once was enough, isn't anymore. The answer here isn't prevention, it's responding with greater force... Bring in the tanks and drones!


Whoops!! Drone just destroyed Clint's home because intell said it was a Cartel operation...

But that's overshadowed by the fact that gangs and the paramilitary Militia are at war in the streets every day..

You think civilian casualties resulting from gang shootings is an issue now? Let your police Militia up and watch the resulting chaos ensue.


Thank god your government is well aware of this already, and won't allow this to happen.

I understand where you're coming from. I do, Clint. But I cannot agree for a number of reasons. The problem won't be solved, but perpetuated by a more paramilitary police force.


I know (more than the average person) how wrong it is to resort to violence to prove a point. But when your point is a serious issue (racism in America) that will not be properly heard after 70+ years! You have to disconnect, put it in perspective...

You can't deny this problem anymore, we're so far past that now. But how do you remove racism from a country that was founded upon it? A country that is run prodominately by whites who have to play the game, and dance to the beat of the drum?

You can't be so bias and narrow minded. People don't burn buildings down for something to do...

[Clint]

The solution to dealing with civil unrest is to combat civil unrest, not to back off and allow it to occur. When you do that, you're essentially telling these criminals that the law doesn't hold as long as they form mobs. Take the situation in Baltimore, for example. A cop killed a man in custody, which is bad, if you assume that the man in custody was not posing a danger to anybody else (he was, but I'll ignore that for the sake of this example.) The death of somebody who should have gone through the legal system for breaking the law is bad, and because he died, that cop should have undergone investigation, which would have happened if people hadn't disrupted the system by rioting, looting, and setting things on fire.

This comes back to race. The man who died was of African origins, and the cop who killed him was white, so obviously it's about race. Except it wasn't. The man in custody was a criminal, and he was dangerous and hostile, and yes, some excessive force was used, but does it really matter? Is the death of a criminal so severe that people essentially have to form a lynch mob and destroy property and businesses of people who had no dealings with the matter?

When people are unruly, stricter enforcement is necessary to quell the situation. When people become as dangerous as they were in Baltimore, militarization of the police is necessary. If people don't want the police to stay militarized, they should probably stop breaking the law in such a severe manner, or simply obey the law altogether.

The militarization of police is a direct response to civil unrest. What civil unrest is a direct response to, I have no idea. Poverty, maybe, but poverty is not the fault of the police. That's completely economical and political.

[OutlawTorn]

You really don't know what this is about?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record in this thead: it's about 150 years of systemic racism and oppression following SLAVERY in America. Which the police have A LOT to do with.


I'm not going to harp on it, but if we're going to discuss these issues, I feel to do it properly you have to address the real issues here. It goes deeper than riots and police conduct. Neither side is evil, we're dealing with sensitive, grey areas in my opinion. Each side has has it's pros and cons.

But it's important to reinforce the fact that these people aren't all black. And they aren't rioting and protesting for something to do. And they aren't domestic terrorists looking to shake the system up.

The issue here is racism, and equality. When's the last time you saw a white kid killed by police during an arrest? Furthermore, in a case where the individual didn't have a weapon, and wasn't declared armed and dangerous?


The average North American citizen (Canadians especially) is unaware that of the 21 founding fathers, 14 owned slaves at some point in their life. Among them, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington... American heroes, and all ex-Presidents.

In fact, 4 out of the 5 first Presidents owned slaves while serving as President. 12 Presidents total have owned slaves, 8 of them while serving as President.

Imagine being a young African-American student in Social Studies, learning about patriotism, and the great men who forged America; The Land of The Free!

But wait a minute, George Washington, the Grandfather of America was a slave owner... He supported the bondage and suffering of my people?

I can imagine how confusing, perhaps even unsettling that might be for a young, impressionable mind.


“I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”
—Abraham Lincoln

The first in a long line of true American heroes, and a life-long role model of mine.


(It's worth noting that men like John Adams never owned a slave in his life, but they didn't actively oppose slavery either.)

[Clint]

It's not about race. It's about a small percentage of fools claiming racism to something that happens to everybody. Police kill people all the time in America. Perhaps they're trained that way to deal with increasing violence within the last 50 years, or perhaps they were trained like that deliberately, before increased force would be necessary.

But if you're taking the race argument, then I'll be happy to shed some light on that. In the CDC's WONDER database, they have information regarding people who are killed by law enforcement, categorized by race. You can jump back to 2012. These statistics are widely available, because they were reported during the events in Ferguson last year.

In 2012, 140 black people were killed by police, whereas 386 white people were killed by police. From 1999 to 2013, police killed 1,130 black people, but 2,151 white people. Also, if you go back as far as 1968, where the rate of black people killed by police was 8.6 out of every million. Compare that to the numbers in 2011, at 2.74 out of every million, and you can see that the rate has gone down substantially. 75 percent, in fact, whereas the rate of white people killed by police has remained fairly consistent. The race argument would have worked 50 years ago, but it doesn't hold water today.

You speak of slavery in America in the last 18th century as if it were immoral. For the time, it was a norm. No different than having a servant. These men owned slaves, yes, but the majority of the time, the slaves were taken care of and given good living conditions. You speak ill of George Washington, yet he wanted to free his slaves. The only reason he didn't was because he died before he had the chance, and his widow didn't have the same views about slavery as her late husband. So no, George Washington did not support the bondage and suffering of his slaves. Being a slave owner and being a cruel human being are two very different things.

Not only that, if anybody is offended that the majority of the founding fathers owned slaves, then they're probably also too stupid to realize that it doesn't actually effect their lives. Slavery in America was abolished 150 years ago. Black people gained equal rights under the law 51 years ago, so the issue of slavery and equality is done. It's been done for five decades, in fact.

Now here's a point. You're arguing about specific American issues, yourself not being an American, to an American. I know my country a little better than you do, and I can tell you straight out, your point is bullshit.

[Rowan]

The goddamn clint eastwood has spoken. Hell, I even learned something just now.

[OutlawTorn]

I've spoken my peice, believe what you want. It matters not at the end of the day.

You were wrong 6 months ago, you're still wrong now. As a citizen of the most racist State in America, I expected you of all people to be able to handle the truth. But then... Maybe it makes perfect sense...