5 ms·

Adding to this common problem in larger metropolitan police forces in the US is their rapid militarization. Shaking down kids while cruising around in a black

Adding to this common problem in larger metropolitan police forces in the US is their rapid militarization. Shaking down kids while cruising around in a black and white is one thing. Being equipped with military gear including armored cars opens up a whole new level of control issues. http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-the-rook-armored-caterpillar-vehicle-swat-teams-police-usa-iacp-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/photos-the-rook-armored-cater...

jacquesm 9y ago
> Shaking down kids while cruising around in a black and white is one thing. Being equipped with military gear including armored cars opens up a whole new level of control issues. I'm not sure which one of those two does more damage to society in the longer term. The second obviously has problems but the first chips away at the foundations and I suspect that long term that one will have far more potential to do damage.
- olivermarks 9y ago
  The ongoing debate between moderates and the far right in Israel is an extreme example of this control issue. The 'Rook' mentioned in the link is built on a caterpillar chassis, as is the case with the armored devices Israel uses to destroy Palestinian homes and schools. http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-destroys-two-illegal-EU-funded-Palestinian-schools-503252 http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-destroys-two-... A caption of one of the linked photos about the Rook at the Philadelphia police equipment convention - 'The last attachment is the grapple claw, which can remove fortified doors and burglar bars and even be used to remove debris from natural disasters'. Surely natural disasters and helping people comes first not, as an afterthought....
- ColanR 9y ago
  The big problem is when the police officers that enjoy shaking down kids are equipped with military gear. That is a scary thought.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
manfredo 9y ago
I don't think corruption has much to do with "militarization". It doesn't take a tank to plant evidence and steal money. Also, much of the equipment that people point to as evidence of "militarization" is either generic equipment that has valid police use (e.g. armored trucks. Brinks security, for example, uses them for their secure transport services), or is not military equipment at all. Riot shields, gas masks, and tear gas aren't commonly used by the military and they are designed to resolve things like riots non-lethally. In the old days, soldiers were broke up riots by clubbing people with sticks and shooting wooden bullets. Today's riot police are much better equipped to safely disperse a crowd with their "militarized" equipment.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  It's not about the tanks. Once the cops start thinking of themselves as "warriors" and the rest of us as "civilians," the necessary lines have been drawn in their minds to justify mistreatment of the outside group. One difference between our militarized (and unionized) police forces and the real military is that if you're in the military and you shoot someone who didn't need shooting, you are in very deep shit. The police are demanding -- and getting -- all of the perks of the Heroic Warrior job title, accompanied by few of the responsibilities that should go with it and essentially none of the accountability.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    I see this assertion made about police thinking of themselves as "warriors" but I have yet to see this substantiated by evidence. It doesn't correspond to the rate of people killed by police (that rate essentially mirrors the overall rate of street crime). I am even more dubious of the second claim you make. A US citizen has vastly better ability to attempt to exact justice for their own police force's actions than someone in northern Iraq or Afghanistan's tribal regions. Especially when the military is more likely to use indirect weapons and weapons with drastically longer range (artillery, airstrikes, etc.) the notion that an unnecessary killing is more likely to result in disciplinary action in the military is very unlikely - there's a substantial chance such loss of life isn't even detected.
meri_dian 9y ago
Nothing wrong with them having advanced equipment to bring out when necessary. Listening to some people you'd think that the police are cruising around in tanks. When the police have to go up against criminals wielding AK's and high powered rifles I want them to be as equipped as possible to defend themselves. The problem is not with the police but rather the widespread availability of guns in our society. It's easy to heft blame on the police, but also intellectually disingenuous because they act and react to the conditions of the society they are tasked to protect. Those conditions are where blame must be placed. As an aside, if a malicious government ever wanted to exert control over the populace then they would have a very easy time doing so with the military regardless of how well equipped the police were. In fact, distributed police forces beholden to local municipalities would likely be a line of defense against a centralized aggressive military. "Police militarization" is really nothing to be concerned about. Unless you're a criminal. Edit: Not being sarcastic.
- betenoire 9y ago
  I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not...
  - meri_dian 9y ago
    Not at all, but I'd be curious to hear why you think I'd have reason to be.
    - betenoire 9y ago
      Sure. You had me nodding until then very end. I don't think you have to feel physically threatened to be concerned about something. And this is a thread about rampant police corruption. But then all of the sudden I felt lumped in with criminals because it _does_ concern me.

jacquesm 9y ago

> Shaking down kids while cruising around in a black and white is one thing. Being equipped with military gear including armored cars opens up a whole new level of control issues. I'm not sure which one of those two does more damage to society in the longer term. The second obviously has problems but the first chips away at the foundations and I suspect that long term that one will have far more potential to do damage.

olivermarks 9y ago
The ongoing debate between moderates and the far right in Israel is an extreme example of this control issue. The 'Rook' mentioned in the link is built on a caterpillar chassis, as is the case with the armored devices Israel uses to destroy Palestinian homes and schools. http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-destroys-two-illegal-EU-funded-Palestinian-schools-503252 http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-destroys-two-... A caption of one of the linked photos about the Rook at the Philadelphia police equipment convention - 'The last attachment is the grapple claw, which can remove fortified doors and burglar bars and even be used to remove debris from natural disasters'. Surely natural disasters and helping people comes first not, as an afterthought....
ColanR 9y ago
The big problem is when the police officers that enjoy shaking down kids are equipped with military gear. That is a scary thought.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

manfredo 9y ago

I don't think corruption has much to do with "militarization". It doesn't take a tank to plant evidence and steal money. Also, much of the equipment that people point to as evidence of "militarization" is either generic equipment that has valid police use (e.g. armored trucks. Brinks security, for example, uses them for their secure transport services), or is not military equipment at all. Riot shields, gas masks, and tear gas aren't commonly used by the military and they are designed to resolve things like riots non-lethally. In the old days, soldiers were broke up riots by clubbing people with sticks and shooting wooden bullets. Today's riot police are much better equipped to safely disperse a crowd with their "militarized" equipment.

CamperBob2 9y ago
It's not about the tanks. Once the cops start thinking of themselves as "warriors" and the rest of us as "civilians," the necessary lines have been drawn in their minds to justify mistreatment of the outside group. One difference between our militarized (and unionized) police forces and the real military is that if you're in the military and you shoot someone who didn't need shooting, you are in very deep shit. The police are demanding -- and getting -- all of the perks of the Heroic Warrior job title, accompanied by few of the responsibilities that should go with it and essentially none of the accountability.
- manfredo 9y ago
  I see this assertion made about police thinking of themselves as "warriors" but I have yet to see this substantiated by evidence. It doesn't correspond to the rate of people killed by police (that rate essentially mirrors the overall rate of street crime). I am even more dubious of the second claim you make. A US citizen has vastly better ability to attempt to exact justice for their own police force's actions than someone in northern Iraq or Afghanistan's tribal regions. Especially when the military is more likely to use indirect weapons and weapons with drastically longer range (artillery, airstrikes, etc.) the notion that an unnecessary killing is more likely to result in disciplinary action in the military is very unlikely - there's a substantial chance such loss of life isn't even detected.

meri_dian 9y ago

Nothing wrong with them having advanced equipment to bring out when necessary. Listening to some people you'd think that the police are cruising around in tanks. When the police have to go up against criminals wielding AK's and high powered rifles I want them to be as equipped as possible to defend themselves. The problem is not with the police but rather the widespread availability of guns in our society. It's easy to heft blame on the police, but also intellectually disingenuous because they act and react to the conditions of the society they are tasked to protect. Those conditions are where blame must be placed. As an aside, if a malicious government ever wanted to exert control over the populace then they would have a very easy time doing so with the military regardless of how well equipped the police were. In fact, distributed police forces beholden to local municipalities would likely be a line of defense against a centralized aggressive military. "Police militarization" is really nothing to be concerned about. Unless you're a criminal. Edit: Not being sarcastic.

betenoire 9y ago
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not...
- meri_dian 9y ago
  Not at all, but I'd be curious to hear why you think I'd have reason to be.
  - betenoire 9y ago
    Sure. You had me nodding until then very end. I don't think you have to feel physically threatened to be concerned about something. And this is a thread about rampant police corruption. But then all of the sudden I felt lumped in with criminals because it _does_ concern me.