4 ms·

At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're

At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're armed for tactical urban warfare and they have a kill or be killed mindset. Of course, this analogy falls apart when they engage in civil forfeiture (they take your money without cause). In that case they don't act like active military, they act like pirates. I would love to see a 3rd or 4th Amendment case against some of this stuff.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. You just don't find many of those people on HN.
- macintux 5y ago
  > You just don't find many of those people on HN. I see plenty of them here in this discussion.
- abernard1 5y ago
  > There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. Firstly, this requires some real historical revisionism as police were actually around when the founding fathers were. American law is foundationally based on British Common Law, which also employed police vigorously. But I agree with you about HN. Most of the commentators here probably supported the giant expansion of federal, militarized police: the Capitol Police. That $3B expansion funded on conspiracies of white supremacists everywhere has led to two new charters of a federal police in states not in the Capitol.
  - hnbear 5y ago
    Sure, but then in the UK the Peelian principles were developed: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population. Later codified as: - To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. - To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. - To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. - To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. - To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. - To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. - To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. - To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
    - abernard1 5y ago
      Those things were developed in the 19th century, so clearly the founders didn't find police (even without those principles) problematic. But those things are not controversial. I think what happened to this lady is terrible and her case is correct. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the people who are ACAB but then supported tens of thousands of troops guarding the Capitol ("ol" not "al") and an expansion of a real national military police on silly, false pretexts.
  - tssva 5y ago
    Police forces as we know them were most definitely not around when the founding fathers established the country. At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Constables served writs and warrants usually paid based upon the number served and also performed other non-law enforcement duties. Police departments didn't start appearing in the US until the 1830s.
    - abernard1 5y ago
      > At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Sheriffs, in other words. We can debate whether or not more or less power should be given to directly elected sheriffs and deputies, or the police, but that is immaterial. Sheriffs and police are two near identical systems of power that are applied in different manners. The critics of police power are also critical of sheriffs, in many cases more so. I would personally prefer we demilitarize the police, including federal police and the FBI, but the idea that local cops is a standing army is silly.
      - tssva 5y ago
        No, constable and watch systems which existed were not similar to modern police or sheriff systems of today.
- eftychis 5y ago
  As @macintux noted there are many here complaining. I don't think it's really hard to find people having a concerned opinion honestly.
14 5y ago
The red and blue gang. Pirates for sure.
sen 5y ago
The military also has much stricter ROE than the police do. The police are state-sanctioned violent gangs designed purely for oppression and fear, nothing else. How else can you justify blanket qualified immunity with no recourse, civil forfeiture, and the extreme militarization of their equipment and processes.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  Not just stricter ROE, but much more accountability. If those ROE are violated, you'll see everyone up the chain start sweating. Shit still rolls downhill, but it's also really not uncommon to see commanders get replaced when major fuckups happen down the chain. That doesn't happen with civilian police forces.
ummonk 5y ago
"At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're armed for tactical urban warfare and they have a kill or be killed mindset." More than the actual army itself, the militarized police is the standing army that anti-federalists warned about.
- eftychis 5y ago
  What I don't really get is why the U.S. supposedly structured to avoid such militarization has given in the fear and allowed such militarization to happen and propagate oppressive state arm usage. Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. Any just improperly trained officer is a danger to everyone around them (gun, plus gun ho culture, plus immunity plus possibly (per state/County) lack of supervision). I grew up thinking it was normal for an trainee officer or at formal events for an officer to not have a gun. It was an expected cultural disappointment to see an officer walks in with a gun on university grounds in the U.S. (not shock...). Case in point: European police to call about ak47 carrying robber hitting during the night a bank to the security guard: stay away and we will investigate and catch him later (they did, no gunfight) U.S.: Suicidal person holding no hostages at some store and asking for people to call the police to kill him: the two officers charge in and start a gunfight almost getting killed(just pick one of the posted YouTube body cam videos...) I am just speechless.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. While many people may think that now, it is by no means the reality. The vast majority of encounters are non-violent. The U.S. has many problems with policing and they should be addressed, but you should not let the media control your perspective about how common these things are. Your examples are also not really comparable. Someone using a weapon for theft is not the same as someone looking to commit suicide by cop. The former is unlikely to kill someone without cause, the former is an unstable individual who is expecting no consequences to matter for their actions since they intend to be dead. Everyone in their vicinity is possibly in mortal danger. That doesn't mean the police acted correctly, but it's not comparable to the other scenario for the purpose of how police should act.
andrewxdiamond 5y ago
I think the new wave of common residential video security systems, like Ring, are going to make this incredibly clear in the coming years. Events involving the police abusing power are often “he said, she said” situations that are heavily biased in favor of the police. We’ve seen an uptick in reporting since everyone started carrying a camera, and when every home has an always-on video security system, victims will have the evidence they need to really fight for their rights.
- touisteur 5y ago
  Well if I read things right, ring does give privileged access to LEAs so I'm guessing the next step is to make ring delete footage because 'active police stuff'...
- andrewxdiamond 5y ago
  Look, I saw this on Twitter just now; (Warning, violent dog abuse) https://twitter.com/haleyjrichey/status/1465785057134710787?s=21 https://twitter.com/haleyjrichey/status/1465785057134710787?... This cop violently attacked this dog, for absolutely no reason. Without the camera, the cop could brush this off as “the dog attacked me and I had to get in” where clearly that is not the case.
dudul 5y ago
Unfortunately, the "police only kill black people" narrative is distracting from this reality. If people could focus on the fact that the police is unnecessarily violent and lethal towards anyone it could change quickly. Focusing on black people basically makes 80% of the population feel - wrongly - like they don't need to worry about the problem. And yeah yeah, "ratio something disproportionate blabla". I dont even care. The reality is if you want to be pragmatic and fix the problem you need to get buy in and support from as many people as possible. You need all people to understand that anybody can get gunned down for effectively no reasons.
- 2xpress 5y ago
  Indeed, Kelly Thomas, brutally murdered by Fullerton police, was not black. And furthermore, his dad was a police officer. Sometimes I wonder if BLM may actually be a pro-criminal-police conspiracy to divide the population by re-framing the police brutality problem into a racial issue.
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    I would be downright shocked if deliberate efforts haven't been made by bad actors, foreign or domestic, to give a spotlight to the loudest & most dubious voices inside both BLM and those opposed to it.
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      Well they have, Mueller investigation revealed Russians ran the blm social media show as well, for "whatever" reason your media rarely talked about it but you're free to read yourself from the original report :)
2xpress 5y ago
I think everybody already knows, there is just no serious organized movement to fix the police (and the activists yapping "defund the police!" are not credible).
authed 5y ago
and the army/pentagon donates equipment to small towns across the US... like those MRAP [1] (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected armored personnel vehicle) using their black/secret budget? 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/18/congratulations-your-tiny-town-has-an-mrap-and-is-ready-for-war/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/18/... In some countries, the police don't even carry guns.
ryathal 5y ago
Hopefully when we finally admit that the police are military, they become subject to UCMJ.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. You just don't find many of those people on HN.

macintux 5y ago
> You just don't find many of those people on HN. I see plenty of them here in this discussion.
abernard1 5y ago
> There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. Firstly, this requires some real historical revisionism as police were actually around when the founding fathers were. American law is foundationally based on British Common Law, which also employed police vigorously. But I agree with you about HN. Most of the commentators here probably supported the giant expansion of federal, militarized police: the Capitol Police. That $3B expansion funded on conspiracies of white supremacists everywhere has led to two new charters of a federal police in states not in the Capitol.
- hnbear 5y ago
  Sure, but then in the UK the Peelian principles were developed: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population. Later codified as: - To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. - To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. - To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. - To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. - To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. - To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. - To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. - To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. - To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
  - abernard1 5y ago
    Those things were developed in the 19th century, so clearly the founders didn't find police (even without those principles) problematic. But those things are not controversial. I think what happened to this lady is terrible and her case is correct. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the people who are ACAB but then supported tens of thousands of troops guarding the Capitol ("ol" not "al") and an expansion of a real national military police on silly, false pretexts.
- tssva 5y ago
  Police forces as we know them were most definitely not around when the founding fathers established the country. At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Constables served writs and warrants usually paid based upon the number served and also performed other non-law enforcement duties. Police departments didn't start appearing in the US until the 1830s.
  - abernard1 5y ago
    > At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Sheriffs, in other words. We can debate whether or not more or less power should be given to directly elected sheriffs and deputies, or the police, but that is immaterial. Sheriffs and police are two near identical systems of power that are applied in different manners. The critics of police power are also critical of sheriffs, in many cases more so. I would personally prefer we demilitarize the police, including federal police and the FBI, but the idea that local cops is a standing army is silly.
    - tssva 5y ago
      No, constable and watch systems which existed were not similar to modern police or sheriff systems of today.
eftychis 5y ago
As @macintux noted there are many here complaining. I don't think it's really hard to find people having a concerned opinion honestly.

14 5y ago

The red and blue gang. Pirates for sure.

sen 5y ago

The military also has much stricter ROE than the police do. The police are state-sanctioned violent gangs designed purely for oppression and fear, nothing else. How else can you justify blanket qualified immunity with no recourse, civil forfeiture, and the extreme militarization of their equipment and processes.

Enginerrrd 5y ago
Not just stricter ROE, but much more accountability. If those ROE are violated, you'll see everyone up the chain start sweating. Shit still rolls downhill, but it's also really not uncommon to see commanders get replaced when major fuckups happen down the chain. That doesn't happen with civilian police forces.

ummonk 5y ago

"At some point, America is going to have to admit to itself that the police has become the military. Police call non-law enforcement people "civilians", they're armed for tactical urban warfare and they have a kill or be killed mindset." More than the actual army itself, the militarized police is the standing army that anti-federalists warned about.

eftychis 5y ago
What I don't really get is why the U.S. supposedly structured to avoid such militarization has given in the fear and allowed such militarization to happen and propagate oppressive state arm usage. Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. Any just improperly trained officer is a danger to everyone around them (gun, plus gun ho culture, plus immunity plus possibly (per state/County) lack of supervision). I grew up thinking it was normal for an trainee officer or at formal events for an officer to not have a gun. It was an expected cultural disappointment to see an officer walks in with a gun on university grounds in the U.S. (not shock...). Case in point: European police to call about ak47 carrying robber hitting during the night a bank to the security guard: stay away and we will investigate and catch him later (they did, no gunfight) U.S.: Suicidal person holding no hostages at some store and asking for people to call the police to kill him: the two officers charge in and start a gunfight almost getting killed(just pick one of the posted YouTube body cam videos...) I am just speechless.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > Every encounter with the police is expectedly a gunfight waiting to happen. While many people may think that now, it is by no means the reality. The vast majority of encounters are non-violent. The U.S. has many problems with policing and they should be addressed, but you should not let the media control your perspective about how common these things are. Your examples are also not really comparable. Someone using a weapon for theft is not the same as someone looking to commit suicide by cop. The former is unlikely to kill someone without cause, the former is an unstable individual who is expecting no consequences to matter for their actions since they intend to be dead. Everyone in their vicinity is possibly in mortal danger. That doesn't mean the police acted correctly, but it's not comparable to the other scenario for the purpose of how police should act.

andrewxdiamond 5y ago

I think the new wave of common residential video security systems, like Ring, are going to make this incredibly clear in the coming years. Events involving the police abusing power are often “he said, she said” situations that are heavily biased in favor of the police. We’ve seen an uptick in reporting since everyone started carrying a camera, and when every home has an always-on video security system, victims will have the evidence they need to really fight for their rights.

touisteur 5y ago
Well if I read things right, ring does give privileged access to LEAs so I'm guessing the next step is to make ring delete footage because 'active police stuff'...
andrewxdiamond 5y ago
Look, I saw this on Twitter just now; (Warning, violent dog abuse) https://twitter.com/haleyjrichey/status/1465785057134710787?s=21 https://twitter.com/haleyjrichey/status/1465785057134710787?... This cop violently attacked this dog, for absolutely no reason. Without the camera, the cop could brush this off as “the dog attacked me and I had to get in” where clearly that is not the case.

dudul 5y ago

Unfortunately, the "police only kill black people" narrative is distracting from this reality. If people could focus on the fact that the police is unnecessarily violent and lethal towards anyone it could change quickly. Focusing on black people basically makes 80% of the population feel - wrongly - like they don't need to worry about the problem. And yeah yeah, "ratio something disproportionate blabla". I dont even care. The reality is if you want to be pragmatic and fix the problem you need to get buy in and support from as many people as possible. You need all people to understand that anybody can get gunned down for effectively no reasons.

2xpress 5y ago
Indeed, Kelly Thomas, brutally murdered by Fullerton police, was not black. And furthermore, his dad was a police officer. Sometimes I wonder if BLM may actually be a pro-criminal-police conspiracy to divide the population by re-framing the police brutality problem into a racial issue.
- Enginerrrd 5y ago
  I would be downright shocked if deliberate efforts haven't been made by bad actors, foreign or domestic, to give a spotlight to the loudest & most dubious voices inside both BLM and those opposed to it.
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Well they have, Mueller investigation revealed Russians ran the blm social media show as well, for "whatever" reason your media rarely talked about it but you're free to read yourself from the original report :)

2xpress 5y ago

I think everybody already knows, there is just no serious organized movement to fix the police (and the activists yapping "defund the police!" are not credible).

authed 5y ago

and the army/pentagon donates equipment to small towns across the US... like those MRAP [1] (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected armored personnel vehicle) using their black/secret budget? 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/18/congratulations-your-tiny-town-has-an-mrap-and-is-ready-for-war/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/18/... In some countries, the police don't even carry guns.

ryathal 5y ago

Hopefully when we finally admit that the police are military, they become subject to UCMJ.