Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Police Get Cool Toys

I think I found another topic where the far Left and far Right meet.  Unfortunately my comments wasn't acceptable, so here we go again.  MinnPost Homeland Militarization

The commenters there seem to be nearly unanimously against letting our police department arm themselves with the cool toys and practice using them.  They seem to fear that the Police are going to declare martial law at any minute.

I actually know a guy who puts plastic over his windows in fear of someone listening in.  And that is what their comments remind me of.  The irony of course is that these are the same folks who want all of our citizens to register their more powerful weapons or sell them off.  Of course, those most likely to have the most exciting weapons are people who fear a government take over. Just like these Liberals seem to.

The Hill: Obama Orders Review
NYT War Gear

While we are at it, what do you think of the Ferguson situation?  Personally, I am curious to hear what Michael's toxicology report shows.

CNN Ferguson: What is Next
AT: Beatification of Michael Brown
NBC: Brown Robbery Video
TP: Brown Video

5 comments:

Sean said...

The problem with giving the police military equipment is that they start viewing policing as a paramilitary operation.

Radley Balko at the Washington Post had an instructive piece on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/14/after-ferguson-how-should-police-respond-to-protests/

Here's a the money quote:

"The buzz phrase in policing today is officer safety. You’ll also hear lots of references to preserving order, and fighting wars, be it on crime, drugs, or terrorism. Those are all concepts that emphasize confrontation. It’s a view that pits the officers as the enforcer, and the public as the entity upon which laws and policies and procedures are to be enforced.

Note the contrast between that and the approaches recommended by Geron, Burbank, Couper, Stamper, and Wilson. They all pit police officers not as enforcers, but as servants. Their primary function isn’t to impose order, but to preserve and protect the rights of citizens. In a strictly academic sense, preserving order and protecting rights are the same thing. Operationally, they’re radically different approaches to policing.

One final, important point: Policing is often cast as a balance between safety and freedom. The problem with that formulation is that it implies that to get a little more of one, we have to give up a some of the other. You need only look at Ferguson to see why that isn’t true. I doubt the residents of that town feel particularly safe or particularly free right now."

John said...

I am sure those that want to find the police officer guilty before he is charged, block roads, break property and loot stores do not feel free to do so. I think that is considered preserving and protecting the rights of law abiding citezens.

Sorry, I'll err on the side of keeping police officers safe and coming home to their family everytime.

I am thinking what went on in Ferguson was Uncivil Disobedience.

John said...

WP How Should Police Respond to Protests

Sean said...

The actual level of violence in Ferguson was rather low. There the one night of looting early on, and then it was extremely sporadic after that.

Most of the problems were caused by the police, who were way over the line in trying to break up peaceful protesters. Their overzealous response invited confrontation instead of diffusing it.

John said...

Chicken or egg...