Militant Police

Thursday, August 28, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

The militarization of police and sheriffs’ departments across the land, as the Angry Poodle barbecued last week in “I Bark Therefore I Yam”, is turning them into an unconstitutional standing army. If you couple those armaments with the mega campaign to disarm Americans and the 1.5 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition being hoarded by Homeland Security, it seems less and less that it’s the public that’s being protected. The latest proposal is especially telling.

HR 5344 is a bill going through Congress that would ban the purchase of body armor. Violation would carry criminal penalties, including up to 10 years in prison. Many defensive, bullet-resistant items on the market now, such as bulletproof backpacks for schoolchildren, would be banned. Whatever your stance on firearms, I hope we can agree that it’s pretty difficult to hurt another human being with body armor. People buy body armor for protection. So why do they want to ban it?

The government claims that “criminals and rampaging madmen” can “wreak havoc” while wearing body armor and that it’s important to shield police from these nefarious individuals. You mean the same police who terrorize ordinary citizens who aren’t breaking any laws? The same police who scream “I will f***ing kill you!” with their weapons trained on protestors exercising their constitutional rights?

It is well past time for all involved with law enforcement to do some serious soul searching and ask themselves, do you really want your children and grandchildren to grow up in a world you are helping create?


Independent Discussion Guidelines

The situation that occurred during the 1997 North Hollywood shootout is what they are trying to prevent with any law against body armor:

During that shootout, two heavily armed men, wearing body armor, held off law enforcement for hours before they were finally taken down. But there were other reasons that occurred: at that time law enforcement personnel were not carrying rifles in the trunks of their vehicles, and a good marksman with a rifle could have taken those guys out at any time. That’s finally what happened.

I’m not trying to justify the banning of body armor, in fact I have no opinion on the matter other than it’s hot and very uncomfortable and I don’t want any. But I do have an opinion on the increasing militarization of the police. I don’t think that, at this point in history, it is unwarranted. However, not every situation warrants the use of armored vehicles or even rifles or shotguns. I do think that there is sufficient justification for law enforcement to wear body armor at all times, though I hope that the air conditioning in their patrol cars doesn’t give out. But when it comes to weapons, a trained officer with a good sidearm such a .40 caliber Glock, can handle almost any civilian problem situation.

The increasing use of SWAT with helmets and full attack gear has become too prevalent, giving rise to the spectre of an actual police state. The fears that have brought this about have all but paralyzed good relationships between law enforcement and civilians in many communities. I think that Senator McCaskill’s idea that LE be allowed to keep their military gear but store it in the National Guard armories for use during emergency situations is a good one.

Good relations between law enforcement and the general populace are primary in keeping the criminal element contained.

nativeson (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 3:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I heard a story about a teacher who conducted classes for prisoners. He once idly mentioned that wealthy folk in Beverly Hills could buy bullet-proof vests on Rodeo Drive.

"Silly rich people," commented one prisoner. "We'll just go for the head shot."

SFGiants (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Except that the police are tooling up to protect the criminals:

It's a function of the wealth polarization. With the Fed and wall street concentrating all the wealth in the hands of a very few, they realize the increasing need for protection. There is greater foresight on the side of the elite than with the general public. We look at militarized police and scratch our heads saying "what the heck is that about." In a few years, as increasing hardship effects the general population and we see police forces continually quelling unrest, we'll say "oh, that's what it's for, we didn't see that coming."

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure, go buy all the guns you want, but screw you if you want protection from it. Wealth gap: poor citizens against military grade police force. Land of the free home of the what? To serve and what was that again? America is turning into the whore of babylon. Has been. Hypocrites.

spacey (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol, spacey you're really being bamboozled in every way imaginable. It's so amazing how liberals who want to protect the poor end up implementing policies and ideas that end up making them even more poor and have less ways of defending their communities from their true enemy, the police state. The reason there is violence in inner cities is because of the war on drugs, primarily, along with poverty. The war on drugs is headed by the police state. In Ferguson we are seeing that the poor are the ones who suffer the most from expanding militarization of the police state.

The welfare state makes poor people and minority communities dependent on the state for support - slowly, over the years, as more people go on welfare there are less economic opportunities in their community - their community never builds and becomes prosperous because there is less incentive to do so, and so the welfare state actually creates more poverty.

spacey, stop supporting every idea under the sun that ends up screwing over minorities, please... it just gives the establishment more excuses to implement more of these insane schemes that end up screwing them over even more.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The elite mountain dwellers of santa barbara figured all this out 25 years ago. You think a town of 80000 needs a helicopter, state of the art shooting ranges, all kinds of paramilitary equipment and communications technology? Im in a city in canada right now that is 400000 population and has none of that crap. Nick welsh is just now noticing this? I grew up being scared to death if i got in a fistfight i would end up being raped in prison, watching my friends go to prison and come back permanently damaged. These draconian drunk driving laws are just now being addressed? This has been going on for 25 YEARS.

redbunz (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Real zombies don't wear body armor.

atomic_state (anonymous profile)
August 28, 2014 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Body Armor issue has nothing to do with these crazy shooters, none of them have been found wearing these vests, although the Santa Ann Bank robbery is one such case wear the criminals are better protected than the Police but for a very long time (before 9-11) police had to supply their own Body armor and not the Departments. As an Armed Contractor, I wear body armor daily whether armed for work or off duty due to the violent behavior of the standard citizen of DC. Have only been shot four times with the armor on and twice by a semi-auto rifle (wearing my steal-plate), as of yet have not taken hits without the armor. I have had specific training in shooting situations which requires the double-tap, one in the chest and the other in the head, building "sweep and clear" operations, active shooter take-downs and armed building breaches, but most police are simply trained to hit center mass (Chest area), and NO head shots; also neither I nor Police are trained to "shoot guns out of peoples hands", only in Hollywood does that ever happen, our training is to Stop The Threat!
In Ferguson, Ms. it was a racially charged situation (by most accounts), and everyone was on edge and out of character, then again, I always worry of the fresh recruit, just out of the Academy and feeling all gun ho, looking to prove their metal by getting the jump on the suspect, many were just sitting in front of their Game boxes before deciding to become Police Officers and they want to prove they can handle themselves in a possible gun fight, I always move slowly and cautiously around them, as they are more likely to shoot someone and attempt to pass it off as having the Police gitters (although they may need more time at the academy). You have got to be responsible for your actions...

dou4now (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2014 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Body armor is among the aid Poroshenko is requesting from NATO.

"At a Nato summit in the Welsh city of Newport next week, Nato leaders will meet Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine's new president, to make clear what Mr Rasmussen described as their "unwavering support" for Ukraine.
Diplomatic sources have told the Daily Telegraph that Ukraine will ask for a package of "non-lethal" aid including thousands of set of new uniforms, helmets, body armour and communications gear."

random_kook (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2014 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: