Interesting piece in the NYT about the militarization of the country's police.
The number of SWAT teams has skyrocketed since the 1980s, according to studies by Peter B. Kraska, an Eastern Kentucky University professor who has been researching the issue for decades.
The ubiquity of SWAT teams has changed not only the way officers look, but also the way departments view themselves. Recruiting videos feature clips of officers storming into homes with smoke grenades and firing automatic weapons. In Springdale, Ark., a police recruiting video is dominated by SWAT clips, including officers throwing a flash grenade into a house and creeping through a field in camouflage. |
This also reminds of of when Bloomberg claimed to have the seventh largest standing army in the world. (Think about that.) We know from the republican national convention that the NYPD does have anti aircraft missiles, drones, submarine drones, helicopters, armored carriers, etc.
link - (
New Window )
MP-5
Also, I remember hearing on the radio very recently that Chargers held their value better than ANY car on the road last year. So there's that, for longevity's sake.
As somebody said, squad cars need big engines. They need to have room in the back (to transport unarmed teenage first offenders with a joint), they need to be rugged to stand up in all conditions and put up a million miles of driving. So the Charger isn't terrible. And it isn't not known as a particularly luxurious or comfortable car, for that matter.
I'd rather they drive chargers than SUVs as a standard vehicle (which you see more and more in govt fleets) or $30,000+ Chevy Volts (which you also see in govt fleets), which are supposed to be 0 Emish, but you know they are probably using the gas engines most of the time anyway.
pointing the long guns, ill advised. Use of the rubber bullets - I am not a fan of these types of projectile weapons, especially in a mixed crowd.
Tear gas - same thing, not advisable for this crowd. Pepper spray, pepper foggers would have been better.
Media has been handled poorly. Should have all been corraled into one spot if they didn't want them wandering around. Police have the right to establish perimeters for security reasons, but it needs to be more clear cut. Typically, if you designate an area for the media and provide them with regularly scheduled information sessions - that resolves a lot of these issues.
I give you the Crosman M4-177 pellet rifle.
The resemblance is uncanny.
And that's retail price - I'm sure police depts pay much less
Force is rare in police citizen encounters - roughly 2% or less of all encounters, excessive force is a small proportion of that. Still does not excuse it when it occurs - but exaggerating the problem is the other side of ignoring it.
While the vehicles may be unnecessary and inefficient, the vehicles in and of themselves, are not a threat to anyone - unless they are used by the police to run people over
One thing to remember - during days after some of the active shooter events, some police agencies took a lot of heat for failing to respond effectively - that is the purpose for a lot of the training and equipment (the vehicles snot so much)
again drug raids and other similar types of police ops are extremely rare. figure of 50,000 per year (unverified) has to take into account that there are 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the country
Barricaded suspects - using them to deliver things (e.g., food), retrieve persons form inside affected area.
Again, the use of these items is extremely rare.
In other words, we served in one of Iraq’s bloodiest cities, during the most violent time of the war, with the same gear that a civilian police department is now using in the small American town of Ferguson, Missouri, to quell civic disturbances there. Our wars have come home.
Link - ( New Window )
What threat against the public is an armored truck? What military grade weapons did these police have that people think they shouldn't have had? I mean specifically...not in general.
What threat against the public is an armored truck? What military grade weapons did these police have that people think they shouldn't have had? I mean specifically...not in general.
It's about perception though. You want to discourage criminals but what exactly does an MRAP discourage? It may cow and intimidate law abiding citizens who run around with Ron Paul or Green Party bumper stickers and you can giggle and sneer, but we are a free people and the idea that local governments should have equipment like this that does more to cow and intimidate than it does to facilitate even response to the most serious law enforcement situations is very troubling. MRAPs SUCK SUCK SUCK for most of these things. They are designed for one purpose, to survive IEDs aimed at vehicles, a threat that has never been encountered meaningfully in the states. They are slow to egress, their fields of fire are very limited, if you wanted something quasi-useful for those purposes a Stryker is much better, not that it would be especially appropriate either. If someone decides to start planting IEDs we can pull them out of cold storage but until then they are a shiny and unnecessary toy.
This is all being driven by the notion of the "militarization of police". I have been skimming the book of same title and he makes one good point. Misguided drug policies have made some law enforcement agencies too quick to resort to drug raids, which use SWAT tactics. A lot can go wrong during these raids and they should be used more judiciously.
Where the general premise of the book goes wrong is to argue that police departments are becoming mini-armies. The logic allegedly goes like this - if they receive this equipment and funding from the military then they will take on a military mindset. Problem - an exponentially larger amount of funding was derived from the community policing movement which was based on building partnerships with the community. And, unlike the equipment - the CP movement compels agencies to adopt a CP strategy when using their funding. There is no such requirement re: any of the military equipment - it's basically - this stuff is free, we are going to throw it away, do you want it? By the way, we provide you with no advice re: how to police your city.
Is some of the equipment unnecessary? Absolutely. Are there incidents in which this military mindset does creep into some police agencies - certainly. But, this notion that the police are becoming mini-armies and that this equipment is driving how all police departments operate is based on a shaky argument.
A very small percentage of officers will receive the SWAT training. When these teams are used - I suspect it is often due to some type of barricaded suspect, (who eventually will surrender). BTW: lots of agencies have crisis negotiation team to deal with these types of contingencies.
The active shooter training would and should be given to most officers because during an incident all may be required to respond. Again, the odds of it occurring are equivalent to zero. Still, based on that rare possibility that it could occur - you better have a contingency plan.
I agree with you with regards to the weak points of the article. However, even the writer specifically states the difference with regards to air and indirect fire availability for troops on the ground in combat zones. Even without those, the mere fact that at the individual level (your rifleman level), the armaments are essentially the same (other than perhaps frags and your squad automatic weapons trooper) is still troubling. One group is equipped to conduct combat operations, but the other group shouldn't be. And whether the effects of such similarity is only that of creating a wrong public perception and/or a more militarilistic mentality on the part of the law enforcement, it's still a direction that shouldn't be one that our nation should move in.
As far as the whole Feeguson PD or County PD issue goes, I think most people have just lumped them all together...not saying that is right, but it also shouldn't be the reason for the article to lose credibility since even at the county level the presence of more militarilized equipment and tactics isn't right.
It's not like they're getting them out on a normal day abd carrying them up to traffic stops.
This is all being driven by the notion of the "militarization of police". I have been skimming the book of same title and he makes one good point. Misguided drug policies have made some law enforcement agencies too quick to resort to drug raids, which use SWAT tactics. A lot can go wrong during these raids and they should be used more judiciously.
Where the general premise of the book goes wrong is to argue that police departments are becoming mini-armies. The logic allegedly goes like this - if they receive this equipment and funding from the military then they will take on a military mindset. Problem - an exponentially larger amount of funding was derived from the community policing movement which was based on building partnerships with the community. And, unlike the equipment - the CP movement compels agencies to adopt a CP strategy when using their funding. There is no such requirement re: any of the military equipment - it's basically - this stuff is free, we are going to throw it away, do you want it? By the way, we provide you with no advice re: how to police your city.
Is some of the equipment unnecessary? Absolutely. Are there incidents in which this military mindset does creep into some police agencies - certainly. But, this notion that the police are becoming mini-armies and that this equipment is driving how all police departments operate is based on a shaky argument.
Again though, it's a free society. We have a right to protest and to demonstrate, and short of full-out rioting or looting the appropriate response is not to descend with armored vehicles with camo-clad officers wielding pimped out AR-15s or comparable weapons popped out of the gunner's hatch. I respect law enforcement, individually and collectively, but perception IS important.
It's not like they're getting them out on a normal day abd carrying them up to traffic stops.
Someone mentioned earlier that these riot situations don't happen often enough to really argue that the militarilization of the police is a big deal. But same can be said of active shooter situations not being that frequent so why should the police have such weapons. You (that's a general you) can't use such rare occasions (active shooter) as justification for arming and allowing the police to use such weapons then say that those who are also using other rare occasions (protests when such weapons are unnecessarily brought out) as evidence of this militarilization are being unreasonable.
In the end, police having weapons isn't as big a deal as much as the unnecessary use of such weapons by police who most likely don't have adequate training in proper decision making process to use said weapons. These are weapons used for warfare, not to ensure law and order against your own citizens whenever opportunities arise to bring them out.
But I also believe that you need every tool in the toolbox that you could ever possibility have a use for with some personnel proficient in it's use. If it is never ever used, all the better. Should it have been used in this instance? Probably not.
Just a quick comment shutting down air space.
It's normal procedure to shut down air space where one or several aircraft are operating in support of an event. It's dangerous enough to keep track of participating aircraft.
Any time we had a brush fire with several ground units and tractors that necessitated a command team, a spotter plane was dispatched and air space secured.
Securing air space is a common occurrence and a phone(radio) call away. The local air traffic controllers are not going to deny a request from any authorized agency. I would suspect it occurs daily across the country.
Have to play nice in the sand box.
Before the police were criticized for their slow and ineffective response to active shooter incidents. Now, they are being criticized because they have the equipment to deal with those situations. Again, the likelihood of it happening is rare - doesn't mean you don't have it available.
Duned - Agreed. But, no one with any knowledge of these matters or even with a smattering of common sense would argue that the use of the equipment in this situation was judicious. RE: the protests - I don't know how much coordination re: the protests happened between the demonstrators and the police, but that can often eliminate a lot of these problems. Give them a route and in this situation, be as flexible as possible, identify the leaders of the protest so you can have a liaison in case their are problems, and have a an area where the media can meet to get regularly scheduled updates. You can also, to the extent teh 1st Amendment and public safety allow, set up/negotiate some basic ground rules. I am curious what coordination did occur, if any.
Many of my more gung-ho and rash Marines (younger infantry Marines) ended up going into various police departments after they got out of the Corps. They were fantastic warriors, but they were also the kinds of warriors who required a seasoned leader to reign them in and bring some sensibility to situations involving complexity dealing with human interactions (when you instill a sense of warrior ethos to fight in combat to young souls, it takes a lot of seasoning to refine such mentality to make a sensible warrior)...thankfully I had great NCOs with incredible amount of experience working with Iraqis and Afghans in complex situations to bring such sensibility.
Somehow I doubt that is the norm for most of these departments (specifically the tactical teams and SWAT), where warrior mentality is most likely fostered by those lacking such experiences (now with many young military service members in it's ranks). I am not so confident to believe that they have the necessary training to understand the complexity that requires more than the ability to look intimidating or to shoot straight (which in itself is very important) that tactical units focus their training around. Hence when I see such units being used in response to protests in Ferguson, I shake my head at the less than sensible decision making process.
LINK - ( New Window )
-Same tactics used successfully in Afghanistan, Iraq
-Modern law enforcement simply cannot do their job properly by relying on handguns, tasers, and tear gas alone
-A real shot in arm for nation’s ailing weapons industry
-Look on driver’s face when tank pulls up beside Mini Cooper always fun
-Local photojournalists now able to capture fog of war at home
-Nice surprise treat for veterans to see weapons they used in war pop up on their hometown streets
-Never a bad idea to put a more powerful gun in someone’s hand
-Actually going to seem pretty quaint when compared with police armaments 20 years from now
CONS
-Most police officers have proven fully capable of violently subduing protesters without any military-grade weapons
-It actually very hard to recite Miranda rights while holding 40-pound grenade launcher
-There no longer any middle ground between community watch and military
-Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles only get 5 miles per gallon
-Jesus, just look at this shit
-Military-style helmets limit peripheral vision while firing indiscriminately into crowd
-Could potentially be abused if put in lesser hands than America’s historically honest and virtuous police departments
-Takes away that personal touch of beating a suspect to death with bare hands
Link - ( New Window )
after the british occupied NYC for 7 years
NYers had their fill with the military policing the city and refused to let any city police force wear uniforms
instead policeman wore regular clothes and were issued copper badges to signify they were police
hence the name "coppers"
Link - ( New Window )
From what St. Louis County Police showed, it appears that they cannot.
Also, this isn't them versus us deal. It's about the importance in training and experience. About deciding when to bring out your toys when you're dealing with a grieving crowd that one must not only quell but also show empathy towards.
Tell me how much training these police officers/commanders get in dealing with civil disturbances of any magnitude? Probably not so much. Tell me how many of them have spent months not only training but also living through it? Probably not many. Police officers and commanders are most definitely good at what they have been trained for. However, from what we've seen, I don't think they have enough training or even experience to realize that sending in your tactical units armed with not only sniper rifles and M-4 carbines but with heavily armored vehicles will only antagonize your already agitated and distrusting counterparts across the street. And to say, "well, there were looting and riots last night" to give a pretext for such use/show of force against relatively peaceful group of civilians in a non-violent situation is just lazy assessment of the situation bordering on creating an "us versus them" mentality within that particular community (which will just continue to fuel the sense of mistrust). In the end, these are your fellow Americans, not some adversary you have to put down or scare them into complying.
As far as my point regarding the importance of training and experience in the military, you have a young Company Commander (a Captain), who has spent multiple deployments as a Lt and a Captain having to be the sole representative down at the local tribal level. He not only has to build trust with the tribal leaders but has to also learn about refining his (and his company's) ability to deal with protests and the clash of cultures. And this is done in a combat environment where one has to constantly look over his shoulders at who may want to do him harm. Of course not all of them are as successful as others, but at least they are given the training and have been made aware the importance of their decision making, which seems to have been lacking in by the St. Louis County Police.
Just my personal opinion from being an outside observe seeing how the situation on the ground has developed.
And I freely admit that my opinions are based on my own biases of using force or show of force to accomplish your goal, especially when it comes to armed individual confront unarmed civilians.
But, your statement was much broader - that police supervisors could not effectively supervise their subordinates, particularly Marine veterans in SWAT type operations. You make a lot of claims about policing, something you don't have experience or training in. And, I think it prudent to not make too may generalizations about police or police supervision based on this extreme event.
In a previous life, I was involved in law enforcement. We had Marines, several with combat deployments, some with multiple deployments. I did not find them to be harder to supervise/manage because of their military experience.
If they go to a PD, they will have to undergo a screening process, academy (4-6 months) and a period of in-service under an experienced officer. By the time they start working on their own, they have had more than enough training, information, and experience to realize their is a difference between the battlefield and policing American cities. Generally speaking, they will have some street time under their belt before being able to get involved in specialized units (e.g., SWAT). That time will reinforce the lessons they have already learned.
During the time on the street, they will learn to appreciate the challenges of the job and will learn to respect experienced officers and submit to supervision, despite it not being the "Marine" brand.
RE: the helmets, shields - I would want that equipment if people were throwing things ate me or if there a likelihood of that happening.
NO WAY!!!! I never, ever would have guessed that!
But, your statement was much broader - that police supervisors could not effectively supervise their subordinates, particularly Marine veterans in SWAT type operations. You make a lot of claims about policing, something you don't have experience or training in. And, I think it prudent to not make too may generalizations about police or police supervision based on this extreme event.
In a previous life, I was involved in law enforcement. We had Marines, several with combat deployments, some with multiple deployments. I did not find them to be harder to supervise/manage because of their military experience.
If they go to a PD, they will have to undergo a screening process, academy (4-6 months) and a period of in-service under an experienced officer. By the time they start working on their own, they have had more than enough training, information, and experience to realize their is a difference between the battlefield and policing American cities. Generally speaking, they will have some street time under their belt before being able to get involved in specialized units (e.g., SWAT). That time will reinforce the lessons they have already learned.
During the time on the street, they will learn to appreciate the challenges of the job and will learn to respect experienced officers and submit to supervision, despite it not being the "Marine" brand.
I appreciate your perspective from your experience. And you are correct, my entire involvement in these threads have been focused on the use of these heavy-handed tactics against protesters as demonstrated in this singular event. I don't believe that I have criticized law enforcement in general beyond their less than prudent use of these special tactical units, who are ill-trained and ill-fitted to respond to protests. Why use a hammer when a screw driver can get the job done better?
As far as my comments regarding the police commanders and their show of not-so-prudent decision making, you are right. I made it sound too broad. I should have specified that my comments were focused on their use of these special tactical units in situations like this where a heavily armed police officers (trained to take down violent assailants) aren't well suited.
But I stand by my comment that young Marines and overzealous police officers in SWAT or other special tactical units (trained to be action oriented and aggressive) aren't going to respond well to a bunch of idiots throwing rocks at them. And the commander who decided to send those officers into that situation didn't make the right decision, especially if he used the previous night's disturbance as the factor in making his decision the following day (against a completely different kind of a crowd).
No doubt. However, as my other posts have stated, when you treat all protestors with the same level of aggression (having a group of officers decked out to the max in body armor and carrying lethal weapons pointing their guns as you is about as scary and aggressive as a person can get in these kinds of situation), you're going to make your life harder by making them unite against you.
So where a peaceful Ferguson protestor may not normally agree with the rock thrower (or worse), he may see it as the only response to having a bunch of white officers aiming their weapons at him and his group. It's human nature to side against aggressors, who appear to want to do you harm and bond with those who are opposed to those aggressors.
It's a vicious cycle, to put it bluntly.
There are a lot of issues re: policing, but, to exaggerate the extent of problems while ignoring more important ones is not the way to make things better.
BTW: I am critical of police when I think it warranted, so, the notion that my position is predictable because of my LR experience is off the mark.
There are a lot of issues re: policing, but, to exaggerate the extent of problems while ignoring more important ones is not the way to make things better.
BTW: I am critical of police when I think it warranted, so, the notion that my position is predictable because of my LR experience is off the mark.
Yes, vast majority of police work has nothing to do with AR's, sniper rifles, and armored vehicles. That is not a question. However, even when these weapons/vehicles aren't being used, police officers have gained pretty unpopular reputation and sometimes downright damning reputation from a large segment of our nation due to their perceived authoritative attitudes and sometimes brutality. Now throw in these incidents like Ferguson, and you just reinforce such perceptions, no matter how rare they may be. This is attributed to both the historical injustice people feel that the police is responsible for and the 24 hour news and social media.
I think most of us can agree that vast majority of the police officers are good people, and incidents like these are few and far between. But those incidents that do make the front page leave an indelible impression on the populace. The last thing you want is to continue to have permanent images of white cops pointing their service/sniper rifles at their non-white civilian counterparts during mostly peaceful protests.
Again, with respect to brutality - it's inexcusable, but also rare. Force is used in approximately less 2% or less of all citizen encounters. Excessive force is a small percentage of that. Based on the media narrative - all police agencies have turned into small armies and brutality is common. Best available research indicates that most complaints re: police misconduct are related to rudeness and discourtesy.
Police are responsible for some of the negative attitudes towards them, but, it is certainly unhelpful and unproductive when the media and others exaggerate the size and scope of some problems (e.g., military equipment).
St. Louis County Police certainly unprepared and not trained well enough to handle the event, but to be fair, they are being inundated by an influx of protesters, media, and anarchists on such a large scale - it would seem unforeseeable. That is, even with the proper training, I do not think they would have been prepared for the scale of these demonstrations.
As far as the St. Louis County Police not being prepared, that is definitely an understatement. I will leave it with my own anecdotal response with regards to that...in combat, you can mitigate for difficult situations and being undermanned and undergunned through overwhelming aggression with the troops and firepower you do have to put your adversaries in an untenable situation (no matter how brief) that may turn the tide of the situation. Not so much when it's in your own backyard in America. So when you are unprepared and undermanned, you probably should request support from either the governor's office or the National Guard. And after the first night of looting, they should have recognized that they were not prepared.