Re: Militarizing the Nations Police Forces: Has it gone too far.

by nothing on Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:53 pm

So everybody complains wanting to control the boarder, send troops, build a fence etc. The federal gov can't / won't do it all and in many cases impedes states from doing it as well. The boarder patrol is over-tasked and fed up. So the states try to cover down and everyone still complains because they have .If the feds try to expand the border patrol everyone complains, if they arrest/deport someone everyone complains. So now we complain about gridlock. You really can never make anyone happy, makes me want to lay down and piss straight up.

Call it what you want, but I wouldn't want to do drug interdiction with Mexican cartels in a john-boat and a .45. I guess LEO and states should just say screw it and quit. I've lived with a militarized police force, we're a long way off.

by gunaddict on Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:02 pm

I find it funny how people want it both ways. We don't want the GOV to spend our money, but after Katrina everyone was po'ed because the gov did not do enough. Do I even need to bring up 9/11?

BTW Clintons Swat Van was donated by someone and did not cost anyone anything. Also if you want to fuss about why they have it maybe you should ask... It was used during Katrina to keep public safety in Clinton operational for several days since the power was off at the pd and all operations were moved to the van on generator. If you want to find out where your money is going educate yourself and do not rely on the media...

by steve2112 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:41 pm

pinetor wrote:Funny I have a COMPLETELY different slant on the whole thing!

I really could care less what goodies local or state law enforcment have... hell give them A-bombs...

BUT WHAT DO DETEST IS THE METHOD THEY GOT THEM!

As far as I am concerned the "gearing up" of the local law enforcment is nothing more than Military Vendor Welfare. In fact... I blame G. W. and more over his croneys for paying off the donations from Militart Vendors by creating grants to law enforcement entities for thier goods. Trust me.. the fact that law enforcement has this stuff is NOTHING compared to how much we paid for it!!! How did HomeLand Security go through BILLIONS of Dollars?? By "giving" grants away!!!!! Most of this crap will never be used ( other that the vests, which is what the LEO really wanted out of the deal). Clintons SWAT van... cities biggest paper weight. But hey it was "free" right???? right??????

Giving old war surplus to law enforcment is fine... but spending borrowed money to give to military vendors to buy them off. Just makes my blood boil.

PS: As far as "militarizing" local law enforcment goes, I am MUCH more worried about the mental aspects of what has become the norn.

This is my problem. It's the attitude that is turning police forces into military organizations. And the waste is insane. As you said, does a city like Madison or Clinton need an armored vehicle and fully outfitted SWAT team? How often are these teams and equipment used? But no, much like all other aspects of our state governments, they have gotten used to sucking on the federal teat and getting those federal dollars. Ever look at those highway construction funding signs? It's usually 75% or more federal money.

And the scary thing on the attitude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Though the White House[4] and Senate sponsors[5] maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act legislatively codifies[6] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1031(a-e) of the bill...An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention of American citizens, without trial, was rejected.

by PhillipM on Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:26 am

nothing wrote:
Call it what you want, but I wouldn't want to do drug interdiction with Mexican cartels in a john-boat and a .45. I guess LEO and states should just say screw it and quit. I've lived with a militarized police force, we're a long way off.

I call it the mission of the United States Coast Guard.

by pinetor on Fri Dec 23, 2011 8:56 am

BTW Clintons Swat Van was donated by someone and did not cost anyone anything. Also if you want to fuss about why they have it maybe you should ask... It was used during Katrina to keep public safety in Clinton operational for several days since the power was off at the pd and all operations were moved to the van on generator. If you want to find out where your money is going educate yourself and do not rely on the media...

Hmm I cant find the quote thing. Hey we are all good here. But this trouble me. If I am wrong then I need to find out ( and I will). My statement came from a Clinton LEO, when the van first arrived... years ago. He told me there was no funding for an actual swat team, but it was a pretty truck.
Its great the truck saw use in Katrina, and as I said or implied I have no trouble with Clinton or anyone having great stuff. But I do have a big issue with the FEDs sending out grants for stuff... which generally does have strings attached.
Also.. just as an aside.. I think Don is a great guy and we are fortunate to have him, lord knows I could not put up with the crap I am sure he does.

by nothing on Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:05 am

PhillipM wrote:
nothing wrote:
Call it what you want, but I wouldn't want to do drug interdiction with Mexican cartels in a john-boat and a .45. I guess LEO and states should just say screw it and quit. I've lived with a militarized police force, we're a long way off.

I call it the mission of the United States Coast Guard.

Ok, so we need to increase the budget to the coast guard to expand operations and decrease/remove state control of their borders. That will solve the problem of those pesky citizen checks going to the supreme court. Currently they have 42,000 active and 7500 reservist to cover 94,122 miles of coastline including the great lakes excluding river operations.

For the record, I do agree their are too many federal grants with strings attached going ten million directions. However it isn't exclusive to law enforcement.

by Methos on Thu Dec 29, 2011 9:55 pm

I say let the police get whatever weapons they want, but just remember whose side you choose to fight for WSHTF. If you choose the side of just and right, no one will fault you, but if you choose poorly, it will not be forgotten.