A decade after 9/11, Police Departments are increasingly militirized - Polidicks

[b]Source:[/b] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/police-militarization-9-11-september-11_n_955508.html]Linkage[/url] [quote]New York magazine reported some telling figures last month on how delayed-notice search warrants -- also known as "sneak-and-peek" warrants -- have been used in recent years. Though passed with the PATRIOT Act and justified as a much-needed weapon in the war on terrorism, the sneak-and-peek was used in a terror investigation just 15 times between 2006 and 2009. In drug investigations, however, it was used more than 1,600 times during the same period. It's a familiar storyline. In the 10 years since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the government has claimed a number of new policing powers in the name of protecting the country from terrorism, often at the expense of civil liberties. But once claimed, those powers are overwhelmingly used in the war on drugs. Nowhere is this more clear than in the continuing militarization of America's police departments. POLICE MILITARIZATION BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11 The trend toward a more militarized domestic police force began well before 9/11. It in fact began in the early 1980s, as the Regan administration added a new dimension of literalness to Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs." Reagan declared illicit drugs a threat to national security, and once likened America's drug fight to the World War I battle of Verdun. But Reagan was more than just rhetoric. In 1981 he and a compliant Congress passed the Military Cooperation with Law Enforcement Act, which allowed and encouraged the military to give local, state, and federal police access to military bases, research, and equipment. It authorized the military to train civilian police officers to use the newly available equipment, instructed the military to share drug-war–related information with civilian police and authorized the military to take an active role in preventing drugs from entering the country. A bill passed in 1988 authorized the National Guard to aid local police in drug interdiction, a law that resulted in National Guard troops conducting drug raids on city streets and using helicopters to survey rural areas for pot farms. In 1989, President George Bush enacted a new policy creating regional task forces within the Pentagon to work with local police agencies on anti-drug efforts. Since then, a number of other bills and policies have carved out more ways for the military and domestic police to cooperate in the government's ongoing campaign to prevent Americans from getting high. Then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney declared in 1989, "The detection and countering of the production, trafficking and use of illegal drugs is a high priority national security mission of the Department of Defense." The problem with this mingling of domestic policing with military operations is that the two institutions have starkly different missions. The military's job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. Cops are charged with keeping the peace, and with protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens and residents. It's dangerous to conflate the two. As former Reagan administration official Lawrence Korb once put it, "Soldiers are trained to vaporize, not Mirandize." That distinction is why the U.S. passed the Posse Comitatus Act more than 130 years ago, a law that explicitly forbids the use of military troops in domestic policing. Over the last several decades Congress and administrations from both parties have continued to carve holes in that law, or at least find ways around it, mostly in the name of the drug war. And while the policies noted above established new ways to involve the military in domestic policing, the much more widespread and problematic trend has been to make our domestic police departments more like the military. The main culprit was a 1994 law authorizing the Pentagon to donate surplus military equipment to local police departments. In the 17 years since, literally millions of pieces of equipment designed for use on a foreign battlefield have been handed over for use on U.S. streets, against U.S. citizens. Another law passed in 1997 further streamlined the process. As National Journal reported in 2000, in the first three years after the 1994 law alone, the Pentagon distributed 3,800 M-16s, 2,185 M-14s, 73 grenade launchers, and 112 armored personnel carriers to civilian police agencies across America. Domestic police agencies also got bayonets, tanks, helicopters and even airplanes. All of that equipment then facilitated a dramatic rise in the number and use of paramilitary police units, more commonly known as SWAT teams. Peter Kraska, a criminologist at the University of Eastern Kentucky, has been studying this trend since the early 1980s. Kraska found that by 1997, 90 percent of cities with populations of 50,000 or more had at least one SWAT team, twice as many as in the mid-1980s. The number of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 with a SWAT team increased 157 percent between 1985 and 1996. As the number of SWAT teams multiplied, their use expanded as well. Until the 1980s, SWAT teams were used almost exclusively to defuse immediate threats to the public safety, events like hostage takings, mass shootings, escaped fugitives, or bank robberies. The proliferation of SWAT teams that began in the 1980s, along with incentives like federal anti-drug grants and asset forfeiture policies, made it lucrative to use them for drug policing. According to Kraska, by the early 1980s there were 3,000 annual SWAT deployments, by 1996 there were 30,000 and by 2001 there were 40,000. The average police department deployed its SWAT team about once a month in the early 1980s. By 1995, it was seven times a month. Kraska found that 75 to80 percent of those deployments were to serve search warrants in drug investigations.[/quote] Right, one attack on us must mean our police aren't militarized enough to stop them. The hell are they going to do shoot down planes? This is why the police is so fucking trigger happy. Everyone to them who is breaking the law, is a fucking killer. This one time, I was getting investigated by police getting a MIP and they yelled at me don't put your hands in your pockets (I was nervous so kept just trying to put my hands in my pockets) like I was about to stab them or shoot them. They almost pinned me to the ground until I had them feel my pockets. It may be just my town's police force (Mind you they were just the same every where else I went in my state) or how it really is everywhere because all of them thought they were from the video game LA Noire(Although, their investigations were correct, the ones in the real world want to be like them) investigating pointless shit thinking they are always right and everyone murders. Glad I moved out of the USA, it's getting worse and worse.

You moved to China though.

I swear to god, my cities police aren't as brute or trigger-happy as any other cop. My dad's friend recently got pulled over for driving like 20 miles over the speed limit, they just said to be careful next time.

usa ar bad ok dey want to turn into a polieez stat and turn youse intose mindless automatons-ses.

The police are doing their job trying to maintain order and prevent crime. Without them you would need to rely on vigilantes and the army.

I still find it sad that he moved to CHINA cause his cities police are to strict on him.

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32254074] Right, one attack on us must mean our police aren't militarized enough to stop them. The hell are they going to do shoot down planes? This is why the police is so fucking trigger happy. Glad I moved out of the USA, it's getting worse and worse.[/QUOTE] Back in 1997, 2 men with full auto AK47's with drum mags walked into a bank in LA. They were dressed from head to toe in Kevlar and metal plates. The police responded to the calls of a bank robbery and these 2 guys came out shooting. They were using armor piercing ammo, so it ripped right through police officer's vests, while the police and swat wasn't using AP's because they didn't have any, so the rounds they fired bounced off their body armor. They were eventually taken down, and no cops were killed, but quite a few were wounded. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout[/url]) Reasons like that is why cops need armored cars and AP ammo. As far as using SWAT teams for basic drug warrants, is idiotic, theres been to many people that have been shot by SWAT because they thought someone was breaking into their home.

China is best China.

My county had 2 police officers shot in 1 minute, both were wearing vests. I feel more safe that the police are getting more protection and training. Don't like the police? Don't commit felonies. Only way to avoid them.

Breaking into their homes? Do the police not identify themselves when the door goes in?

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32254074][b]Source:[/b] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/police-militarization-9-11-september-11_n_955508.html]Linkage[/url] Right, one attack on us must mean our police aren't militarized enough to stop them. The hell are they going to do shoot down planes? This is why the police is so fucking trigger happy. Everyone to them who is breaking the law, is a fucking killer. This one time, I was getting investigated by police getting a MIP and they yelled at me don't put your hands in your pockets (I was nervous so kept just trying to put my hands in my pockets) like I was about to stab them or shoot them. They almost pinned me to the ground until I had them feel my pockets. It may be just my town's police force (Mind you they were just the same every where else I went in my state) or how it really is everywhere because all of them thought they were from the video game LA Noire(Although, their investigations were correct, the ones in the real world want to be like them) investigating pointless shit thinking they are always right and everyone murders. Glad I moved out of the USA, it's getting worse and worse.[/QUOTE] While I wholeheartedly agree that personal rights should truly be inviolable, and that the increasingly strict security measures that America has taken over the past decade skims the line of acceptability and constitutionality, I can't help but feel like your story of woe and mistreatment is probably just the result of an ignorant kid trying to victimize himself. You're trying to use an anecdote of the cops telling you to keep your hands out of your pocket as evidence of a rising police state? Don't be a fool. Of [i]course[/i] they wanted you to keep your hands out of your pockets. Hell, kids have been shouting, "Stick 'em up!" while playing Cops and Robbers since our grandparents were kids. Making a suspect keep his hands visible is a [i]totally reasonable[/i] security precaution, and acting like you've been abused by the system because you couldn't put your hands in your pockets is just silly.

[QUOTE=Hizan;32254263]Breaking into their homes? Do the police not identify themselves when the door goes in?[/QUOTE] I dont think SWAT does, in case theres a person in there with a rifle, it gives them time to prepare for them, they really should announce themselves though, way to many people have been shot by SWAT that weren't even drug dealers, and were just protecting their home from what they thought was a home invasion.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32254285]I dont think SWAT does, in case theres a person in there with a rifle, it gives them time to prepare for them, they really should announce themselves though, way to many people have been shot by SWAT that weren't even drug dealers, and were just protecting their home from what they thought was a home invasion.[/QUOTE] stupid that they're even shooting people on the suspicion that they're drug dealing. also OP just seems butthurt, in a country where it's legal to own a gun it's no wonder the police are militarized.

[QUOTE=Gareth;32254390]stupid that they're even shooting people on the suspicion that they're drug dealing. also OP just seems butthurt, in a country where it's legal to own a gun it's no wonder the police are militarized.[/QUOTE] They're not shooting them because they're drug dealers, they're shooting them because the victim sees men bust down their door, and they grab the nearest object to defend themselves, and SWAT see's that as a threat.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32254285]I dont think SWAT does, in case theres a person in there with a rifle, it gives them time to prepare for them, they really should announce themselves though, way to many people have been shot by SWAT that weren't even drug dealers, and were just protecting their home from what they thought was a home invasion.[/QUOTE] Upon breaching any building, a SWAT team will ALWAYS identify themselves. This goes for regular police and federal agents. The warrant may be 'no knock' but they will always make sure you know who they are when they step in the door. If they don't, they put themselves in danger of getting shot by an innocent person in what they believe to be a home invasion.

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32254074] they yelled at me don't put your hands in your pockets (I was nervous so kept just trying to put my hands in my pockets) like I was about to stab them or shoot them. They almost pinned me to the ground until I had them feel my pockets. It may be just my town's police force (Mind you they were just the same every where else I went in my state) or how it really is everywhere because all of them thought they were from the video game LA Noire(Although, their investigations were correct, the ones in the real world want to be like them) investigating pointless shit thinking they are always right and everyone murders. Glad I moved out of the USA, it's getting worse and worse.[/QUOTE] Waaaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. WAAAAAAAAAA! If it means me going home at night because I kept some random person from putting their hands in their pockets, in which I have no clue if they are a potential threat or not, I'm going to do it. Oh wait. I already do. A lot. But oh poor you. You got investigated by the evil police and they abused you so horribly because you would not keep your hands out of your pockets and was told to keep them out. Your rights were so horribly violated. I'm glad you moved out of the country. Do us a favor and stay out, we have enough cry-babies. :)

Seems like everyone thinks U.S. police is bad when in reality the media won't report cases of good policework. I'm sure there are a thousand good cops for every bad one.

[QUOTE=Rocko's;32254198]I still find it sad that he moved to CHINA cause his cities police are to strict on him.[/QUOTE] They made him post this OP

That Chinese propaganda must be really effective.

Militarized? Have they seen the Brazilian Police Force? The fucking Mexican ones? They're on par with National Guardsmen if they were brought over here.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;32254822]Seems like everyone thinks U.S. police is bad when in reality the media won't report cases of good policework. I'm sure there are a thousand good cops for every bad one.[/QUOTE] Yeah, good police work doesn't get reported because it's what they're supposed to be doing, so the media don't give a shit because it won't generate views. You do occasionally see good police work in the news but that's just when something extraordinary happens.

This only makes sense considering any criminal could have a fully automatic assault rifle.

What's wrong with cops being a bit tough with their job? I know in certain heavily populated areas in Manhattan, they're hard-assed, but you can't say the entire country is like that. Hell, in upstate NY, some state troopers come visit us and are like "Hey, what's up?".

[QUOTE=HkSniper;32254646]Waaaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. WAAAAAAAAAA! If it means me going home at night because I kept some random person from putting their hands in their pockets, in which I have no clue if they are a potential threat or not, I'm going to do it. Oh wait. I already do. A lot. But oh poor you. You got investigated by the evil police and they abused you so horribly because you would not keep your hands out of your pockets and was told to keep them out. Your rights were so horribly violated. I'm glad you moved out of the country. Do us a favor and stay out, we have enough cry-babies. :)[/QUOTE] lol I love how you get so mad every time someone criticizes the infallible good 'ol USA

[QUOTE=Shiftyze;32254074] Glad I moved out of the USA, it's getting worse and worse.[/QUOTE] China [I]has[/I] military serving as the police. Not sure how this is a better alternative at all.

-National guard lends helicopters to departments that can't afford their own. I have never even heard of national guard ground forces being used in a routine raid. -SWAT teams are used in increasing numbers because they are specifically trained to serve risky search warrants. That training makes them less likely to kill people. Yes, people still die, but it is national news when it happens. Contrary to popular belief, they are generally pretty capable, and their priority is the preservation of human life. -Honestly, who cares if officers get rifles in their cruisers? They saw a problem where officers lacked the means to counter suspects in body armor, and have generally resolved it by issuing better rifles to officers. What part of this equation somehow offends anyone? -Police departments do not have tanks. They have armored vehicles similar to what you would see hauling money around. They do, on rare occasions, get military surplus vehicles like M113's or the like, but they are not tanks, and they aren't even remotely similar to tanks. Surplus transport helicopters (My county has like five UH-1's and two pilots for some bizarre reason) and aircraft aren't armed. How is this being militarized? The fixed wing aircraft are used for traffic monitoring and SAR operations. Helicopters are used for high speed chases, SAR, and searching for suspects. None of this indicates an increase in militarization. This article is stupid as hell.

[QUOTE=JDK721;32255418]lol I love how you get so mad every time someone criticizes the infallible good 'ol USA[/QUOTE] He does bring up a valid point though.

Police officers attitudes and way the function are really based out of necessity. The way department work and the attitudes of the officers are different based on the location and environment. For example I would expect a cop from LA to be more of a hardass then a small time cop who deals with the same people on a daily basis. People try to kill cops just because of the colors they ware, cops don't have the privilege of going about their daily business without worry because people just hate the guy for being a cop. No respect for the individual and how he or she actually is. As for the OP's statement, he is just an idiot that didn't know how to listen to clear instructions and got his ass-whooped. Shame it didn't knock any sense in to you. As a former officer I don't really like the idea of the whole "sneak-warrents" I think these should be saved for extreme cases. Police officers have to clearly identify themselves for a reason, it is reasonable for a person who is a sleep hears his door being knocked down to go in to a defensive mode. Shit I would go full on rambo and bum rush the intruder. Sadly enough though, people want to blame police for a lot of things. But you guys got to remember most of the things they do is out of necessity and their policies really reflect on society as a whole. Every procedure has a purpose and function, they're not made up for fun. For example someone spoke of the LA bank robbery with the two suspects with automatic weapons. Most police now carry AR-15's or a similar assault rifle as a standard loadout in their car after that event. Goes to the whole changing policy out of necessity. [QUOTE=GunFox;32255537]-National guard lends helicopters to departments that can't afford their own. I have never even heard of national guard ground forces being used in a routine raid. -SWAT teams are used in increasing numbers because they are specifically trained to serve risky search warrants. That training makes them less likely to kill people. Yes, people still die, but it is national news when it happens. Contrary to popular belief, they are generally pretty capable, and their priority is the preservation of human life. -Honestly, who cares if officers get rifles in their cruisers? They saw a problem where officers lacked the means to counter suspects in body armor, and have generally resolved it by issuing better rifles to officers. What part of this equation somehow offends anyone? -Police departments do not have tanks. They have armored vehicles similar to what you would see hauling money around. They do, on rare occasions, get military surplus vehicles like M113's or the like, but they are not tanks, and they aren't even remotely similar to tanks. Surplus transport helicopters (My county has like five UH-1's and two pilots for some bizarre reason) and aircraft aren't armed. How is this being militarized? The fixed wing aircraft are used for traffic monitoring and SAR operations. Helicopters are used for high speed chases, SAR, and searching for suspects. None of this indicates an increase in militarization. This article is stupid as hell.[/QUOTE] Exactly this, all the article is doing is spinning a story and getting people all angry and shit. My county has a APC for their swat unit, they drive it on a regular basis during the winter because they'll just drive around and pull people out of snowy/ice ditches.

Fuck you I want our police to be space marines I fucking love being safe

[QUOTE=Hizan;32254263]Breaking into their homes? Do the police not identify themselves when the door goes in?[/QUOTE] They do. I'm pretty sure that have to. Usually something along the lines of "Police Search Warrant!".