The growing militarization of civilian police

[BogT]

...
I send people into harms way on a fairly regular basis and because someone is uncomfortable with the way he/she is dressed, or wearing visible ballistic armor or doesn't like the idea that the LEO is carrying semi-auto rifle to serve a warrant, I'm supposed to increase the agent's personal risk?

No, you're not supposed to increase your agent's risk! But at the same time, you are also supposed to justify to the public the need of LEO to carry a semi-auto rifle to serve a warrant (not saying you cannot). But keep in mind that, if as a bystander I am intimidated by the police, something is not right.

My problem with Police militarization can best be described with a single photo:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2467/...84e20e289c.jpg

These guys are supposedly pat of an NYPD Hercules Team.

My specific issues with it include:

*There is no immediate threat, yet they are tooled up for WWIII intimidating the general public and the good guys.

*Wearing Kevlar helmet when they could be wearing ballcaps and have their helmets attached to plate carrier/vest to reduce the intimidation factor....plus it's more comfortable.

*Wearing sunglasses in close proximity to the general public. Should they take their sunnies off when talking to the public to show they are human beings and not scary Police robots? Yes. Do these guys look like they would(yeah I know it's just one photo)? No. It's yet another barrier between the Police and the public.

*Weapons carried to the front instead of slung to the side or rear. Is there an immediate threat or a threat level that justifies it? No. Does carrying a weapon to the front intimidate the public and create a barrier between the Police and the public? Yes.

There may be some very good reasons for why these guys are doing what they're doing, but I have yet to hear a decent excuse.

It's this kind of stuff that disappoints me about Policing...and it's stuff that's not at the individual level.....it would appear to be bad policy or poor training.

Think about it......it may sound a bit Andy Griffith Show, but if you're tooled up enough to scare little kids away from smiling and waving at you and instead making them cry, you are doing it wrong.

Beat cop with an M4 I've got no issues with........guys dressed up like scary donut eating ninjers I am NOT a fan of.

Flagg, in the post above, made a good point about the barrier between the Police and the public that can appear. As a civilian, my discomfort may be irrational, but the police should still try to do all it can to keep the public on their side. The photo of the two NYPD Hercules Team in front of a park (I see people behind sitting around, so it's just a regular day) will probably affect me more then the idea of the same team involved in a drug bust, for example. So, some simple rules (like removing the helmet when not in a mission) may be enough "to humanize" the force and dismiss my apprehensions.

P.S.> People mention terrorist attacks as a justification to keep an armed force on the streets, but I don't see how that can protect against bombs (the most used tool for a terrorist).

[Kunal Biswas]

but that it is not new in Europe, to just make you aware of that.

And as i said, I was not taking about only Europe but that dont mean i am excluding Europe..

[Nyusu]

That I like to hear as well. And what does the state's size or population have to do with it?

An all-terrain vehicle with a reinforced hull to operate in areas stricken by natural disasters? Top! An armored vehicle to protect officers or innocent bystanders/ victims from incoming gunfire, for example during a hostage siege or barricaded suspect scenario? Top! A protected mobile command post? Top! Three reasons already why they could need it.

And it's only three of them LAVs. Not quite enough to strip 1.8 million citizens off their rights dontcha think?

Ye, LAVs are best vehicles for search and rescue. Thats why they are used by rescue organizations all around the world. NOT.

[Leaper]

My problem with Police militarization can best be described with a single photo:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2467/...84e20e289c.jpg

These guys are supposedly pat of an NYPD Hercules Team.

My specific issues with it include:

*There is no immediate threat, yet they are tooled up for WWIII intimidating the general public and the good guys.

*Wearing Kevlar helmet when they could be wearing ballcaps and have their helmets attached to plate carrier/vest to reduce the intimidation factor....plus it's more comfortable.

*Wearing sunglasses in close proximity to the general public. Should they take their sunnies off when talking to the public to show they are human beings and not scary Police robots? Yes. Do these guys look like they would(yeah I know it's just one photo)? No. It's yet another barrier between the Police and the public.

*Weapons carried to the front instead of slung to the side or rear. Is there an immediate threat or a threat level that justifies it? No. Does carrying a weapon to the front intimidate the public and create a barrier between the Police and the public? Yes.

There may be some very good reasons for why these guys are doing what they're doing, but I have yet to hear a decent excuse.

It's this kind of stuff that disappoints me about Policing...and it's stuff that's not at the individual level.....it would appear to be bad policy or poor training.

Think about it......it may sound a bit Andy Griffith Show, but if you're tooled up enough to scare little kids away from smiling and waving at you and instead making them cry, you are doing it wrong.

Beat cop with an M4 I've got no issues with........guys dressed up like scary donut eating ninjers I am NOT a fan of.

X2! Spot on!

The US Army civil affairs guys should learn the cops how to behave around people who don't want to do them any harm and just live there lifes...

[Flagg]

Given they are with NYPD and NY had its fair share of terrorist attacks I'd like to hear what people from NY think about it.

How many terrorist attacks has NY suffered from? Beyond the 2 biggies at WTC of course? There are thousands and thousands of soldiers around the world displaying more respectful drills to folks in the 3rd world than the Police are showing back at home.

Moreover, if they're situated next to an object worthy of protection - which I suppose - it's even a justified measure of precaution, isn't it.

No.....it isn't.

Again, I go back to the threat level.......does the threat level indicate a high risk of imminent attack or threat of violence? No.....the response should mirror the threat.

If the threat is a "4", you respond with a "4" and train/prepare to go to "10" if required.

If the threat is a "1", you don't walk around perpetually displaying at "10".

Andy Griffith with an M4 talking to the public he's protecting, NOT wearing a 10 metre thick kevlar bubble of intimidation.

Be Professional, be polite, smile a lot, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

I think they need to focus more on the first part.

Being prepared to kill bad guys doesn't have to include looking like it 24/7.

Why would you feel intimated by a cop only because he wears a helmet or sunglasses?

Are you high?

Imagine this, a local is with his family having lunch and his kid starts asking questions like "Daddy what's wrong?" "Are there bad guys around?" "Why do the Police look so mean and scary?" And the parents start wondering what the hell is going on....since the public doesn't know jack sh!t about policing or the military.

Imagine a lost tourist, if you're lost....find a cop, say "G'day", and ask for directions since you're a tourist. Do you think anyone is going to ask these guys? Of course not. Because they are too scary and intimidating.

The end result is further distance between the Police and the public.

Shouldn't this discussion be about the officer's authorities, by the way? If they're still the same like in the days when cops supposedly looked friendly and communicative, then what's the matter.

The thread is about Police militarization. My post and photo gives an example of that.

Do you think genuine terrorists are going to be intimidated or deterred by scarier looking Police?

I doubt it.

If I was a smart terrorist I would do things to try and shape MORE of that behavior as I believe the Police response is benefitting the agenda of the bad guys.

[Laworkerbee]

If I was a smart terrorist I would do things to try and shape MORE of that behavior as I believe the Police response is benefitting the agenda of the bad guys.

Exactly....

[Flagg]

I see this all the time in NYC. The city has spent millions on purchasing military grade weapons, to prevent what?

if a terrorist is going to attack the city, it wont be by engaging in a firefight with these cops, it will be covert and simple, a bomb or gas attack - something from which you cant defend against with an automatic rifle.

Good intelligence and undercover work is what stops terrorism. These robo-cops do nothing but display intimidation to the public and drain the treasury. You dont need a hammer to kill a mosquito.

Yes and no.

Don't forget what happened in Mumbai a few years back.

If a coordinated group of Active Shooters attacked NYC, these guys WITH the tools they have WOULD be needed to Find, Fix, and Finish Active Shooters.

My problem is that I think those Police Officers would only need about 5 seconds to go from Andy Griffith talking to the public like a Beat Cop to tooled up gunfighter moving to contact to help solve that particular problem.

[Mujo2000]

http://www.reporternews.com/news/201...ase-of-police/

http://newark.patch.com/articles/cou...rmored-vehicle

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/wat...e24b95586.html

These are just few I could find in five minutes.

These Lenco people must have some really good Marketing/Sales department.

[Leaper]

I don't get it. Why not have armored vehicles for extreme situation (hostages, barricaded, robberys ect., not rescue operations)?

[Kunal Biswas]

Afaik, There are Armour vehicle made specifically to extract hostages from buildings and narrow hall ways inside hotels and places, Perfect for SWAT and SF operatives, These deigns came after Mumbai terror attacks..

Downside of such vehicles, they offer protection from small arms only..

[KoTeMoRe]

Past situations with dramatic consequences as displayed here:



here:



or here :



were clear proofs that there is indeed a pressing need for the ad hoc equipment as displayed in this thread.

The question is not why, but why NOT...

[Leaper]

There are Armour vehicle made specifically to extract hostages from buildings and narrow hall ways inside hotels and places, Perfect for SWAT and SF operatives..

Downside of such vehicles, they offer protection from small arms only..

Oh you want protection agains IEDs and RPGs now too? Perfect! I think some Harriers would be fitting too. After all they could pick up people if there's a flood or something. Awesome

[Smite18]

I gotta tell ya, putting my jackboots on takes farkin forever!! Also it is a pain in the ass writing cites to old women when my AR gets in the way, hopefully the grant will get me some new badass 1 point slings, you know the ones SeAlS111!!! us. Now back to the fields peasants!!!

[Kunal Biswas]

Oh you want protection agains IEDs and RPGs now too? Perfect! I think some Harriers would be fitting too. After all they could pick up people if there's a flood or something. Awesome

Many think that way..

[Steak-Sauce]

Downside of such vehicles, they offer protection from small arms only..

What do you want to deploy in a scenario featuring heavy weaponry? I assume you mean RPGs. I wouldn't want to sit in a BMP, ex-military MRAP, LAV-25, M113 SWAT, etc. when the bad guys have these kind of weapons. Big, fat targets.