Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (8 Viewers)

[Doctor Detroit]

You didn't care while it was going on but now you complain, why do you think this was happening. This will be the result of the peoples inaction. You did not complain when the government ran all over that rancher in Montana, but now you got issues. Go figure. Welcome to the new USA.

Government Helped Create Fergusons Militarized Police.

August 14, 2014 Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns. As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

A lot of war veterans move into police work as well.The militarization of local police has been driven on a national level. It exists everywhere and is largely a response to the war on terror (in my opinion). It's going to be hard to roll back.

Pretty big reach here don't you think? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? How many ferguson pd members are vets? Other cities? Amount of incidents involving war vets, etc?

I don't think there's a problem with vets as cops, there's a long tradition of that. You want vets as cops. Heck the vets may be more responsible. It's the small town yokels who are getting into britches three times too big that's the problem. All of a sudden they think they're Rambo.

The war vets think they're Rambo? Do you have some examples? I didn't know this was a problem until jonessed pointed it out.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

When you all make excuses you are doing a disservice to the millions of successful black people in this world...I guess their success was just a fluke.

Gotta admit, I kind of admire this. To basically say that black people want to be poor, unemployed and in prison ... and then respond to the inevitable WTF? replies by flipping it around to accuse everyone else of being racist. That's something else.

I simply said in order for there to be change you have to want change...Where did I say all black people want to be poor? You can't force change on people. You can provide all of the tools possible for change and it still will not make a difference unless change is wanted. If that is a racist statement, than I am flabbergasted.

Right here you responded to a post that said, among other things, that "African-Americans cannot break out of the cycle of high unemployment, poverty, lack of family structure, and high incarcaration" by highlighting the quoted language and saying that "you have to want change before that change can happen."

Literally the only interpretation of that post I can come up with, including the language you chose to highlight, is that you're saying change won't happen until African-Americans want it, i.e. that they currently don't. If I'm misreading that, feel free to explain what you actually meant.

I actually meant that the African Americans who live in poverty and can't break the cycle of high unemployment and high incarceration have got to want to not live in poverty and not go to jail....And in order for that to happen apparently they have got to make some changes but first they have got to want to change....Now explain to me how that is racist. In case you didn't know there are plenty of white people living in poverty and being incarcerated, and guess what in order for that to change they have got to want it to change first and foremost..

 

[mcintyre1]

Why is it funny that a lackey Twitter employee got a ticket that said "x people reported y account" and hit a button that flipped a 'suspended' flag from 0 to 1 in a database? It has absolutely nothing to do with hacking or Anonymous's reputation as purveyors of (often ill-gotten) information. Do you think they should have "hacked" Twitter to flip it back? Where's the punchline?

You're not this dense, cmon.

"WE R LEGION. WE USE COMPUTAR"

their solely computer-based means of communication gets taken away from them

It's a bit humorous.

However, Anonymous doesn't care, they're willing to accept accounts getting suspended. It's not like they can't make a bajillion more and release it that way.

He's gotta be trolling... nobody's that dense.

Thanks for making my point for me by showing zero understanding of what Anonymous is or represents. I'm done arguing over such a stupid point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You didn't care while it was going on but now you complain, why do you think this was happening. This will be the result of the peoples inaction. You did not complain when the government ran all over that rancher in Montana, but now you got issues. Go figure. Welcome to the new USA.

Government Helped Create Fergusons Militarized Police.

August 14, 2014 Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns. As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

A lot of war veterans move into police work as well.The militarization of local police has been driven on a national level. It exists everywhere and is largely a response to the war on terror (in my opinion). It's going to be hard to roll back.

Pretty big reach here don't you think? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? How many ferguson pd members are vets? Other cities? Amount of incidents involving war vets, etc?

I don't think there's a problem with vets as cops, there's a long tradition of that. You want vets as cops. Heck the vets may be more responsible. It's the small town yokels who are getting into britches three times too big that's the problem. All of a sudden they think they're Rambo.

The war vets think they're Rambo? Do you have some examples? I didn't know this was a problem until jonessed pointed it out.

I think I said the non-vets, or meant to.

 

[jonessed]

You didn't care while it was going on but now you complain, why do you think this was happening. This will be the result of the peoples inaction. You did not complain when the government ran all over that rancher in Montana, but now you got issues. Go figure. Welcome to the new USA.

Government Helped Create Fergusons Militarized Police.

August 14, 2014 Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns. As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

A lot of war veterans move into police work as well. The militarization of local police has been driven on a national level. It exists everywhere and is largely a response to the war on terror (in my opinion). It's going to be hard to roll back.

Pretty big reach here don't you think? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? How many ferguson pd members are vets? Other cities? Amount of incidents involving war vets, etc?

I have no idea if it related to this particular incident in Ferguson directly. Im certainly not trying to imply as such. I think it relates to more what I see as an increasing disconnect between police forces and citizens.

What aspect are you taking issue with? That war veterans move into police work? I'll see if I can gather some statistics.

 

[mcintyre1]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

Somebody want to ask the Liberals/Progressives what our President is doing distributing hardcore military equipment to local police forces?

Pretty sure that falls on Bush. At worst, Obama didn't end the program (but good luck fighting the influence of the military industrial complex that is now getting to sell support for those vehicles that would have otherwise been sent to a scrap heap and retired).

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1

Where did I ever say that they didn't get the equipment? I think I made it pretty clear that it was happening, and it is happening because a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top want it to happen, so it isn't going to stop no matter who is in the White House.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

Somebody want to ask the Liberals/Progressives what our President is doing distributing hardcore military equipment to local police forces?

Pretty sure that falls on Bush. At worst, Obama didn't end the program (but good luck fighting the influence of the military industrial complex that is now getting to sell support for those vehicles that would have otherwise been sent to a scrap heap and retired).

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1

Where did I ever say that they didn't get the equipment? I think I made it pretty clear that it was happening, and it is happening because a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top want it to happen, so it isn't going to stop no matter who is in the White House.

a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top

Who put the president there. Who is the chief executive. Who is Obama (Lib/Prog). Exactly.

ETA - Note just responding to the original question here. Those kinds of questions flow both ways. And apparently the Libertarians have answered.

 

[kentric]

On the second part, it sure looks 2 + 2 = 4 on the war on terror statement.

Do you mean nationwide? How so exactly? What about the responses of big city departments like NYC and Boston? Are those appropriate for their terror concerns? Are smaller town departments maybe applying big city methods when it's not appropriate?

You'd expect that most of the money/materials are going to higher risk areas, but there would be distribution nationwide. Found a number of aritlcles just typing in "war on terror nationwide arming of police" in a search engine. Some of the articles:

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/06/stop-arming-police-military/87163/

http://youviewed.com/2014/06/10/as-foreign-wars-wind-down-pds-nationwide-arm-for-domestic-ones-thanks-to-the-feds/

This was an interesting article. Says the arming of police is partly to "deal with returning veterans who are now seen as a homegrown terror threat" Wild stuff.

http://www.infowars.com/police-now-armed-for-war-against-returning-veterans/

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You didn't care while it was going on but now you complain, why do you think this was happening. This will be the result of the peoples inaction. You did not complain when the government ran all over that rancher in Montana, but now you got issues. Go figure. Welcome to the new USA.

Government Helped Create Fergusons Militarized Police.

August 14, 2014 Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns. As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

A lot of war veterans move into police work as well. The militarization of local police has been driven on a national level. It exists everywhere and is largely a response to the war on terror (in my opinion). It's going to be hard to roll back.

Pretty big reach here don't you think? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? How many ferguson pd members are vets? Other cities? Amount of incidents involving war vets, etc?

I have no idea if it related to this particular incident in Ferguson directly. Im certainly not trying to imply as such. I think it relates to more what I see as an increasing disconnect between police forces and citizens.What aspect are you taking issue with? That war veterans move into police work? I'll see if I can gather some statistics.

Well that you seem to be tying war veterans in with the supposed militarization of police departments. I've never heard this before and wonder if there is some credence to it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

When you all make excuses you are doing a disservice to the millions of successful black people in this world...I guess their success was just a fluke.

Gotta admit, I kind of admire this. To basically say that black people want to be poor, unemployed and in prison ... and then respond to the inevitable WTF? replies by flipping it around to accuse everyone else of being racist. That's something else.

I simply said in order for there to be change you have to want change...Where did I say all black people want to be poor? You can't force change on people. You can provide all of the tools possible for change and it still will not make a difference unless change is wanted. If that is a racist statement, than I am flabbergasted.

Right here you responded to a post that said, among other things, that "African-Americans cannot break out of the cycle of high unemployment, poverty, lack of family structure, and high incarcaration" by highlighting the quoted language and saying that "you have to want change before that change can happen."

Literally the only interpretation of that post I can come up with, including the language you chose to highlight, is that you're saying change won't happen until African-Americans want it, i.e. that they currently don't. If I'm misreading that, feel free to explain what you actually meant.

I actually meant that the African Americans who live in poverty and can't break the cycle of high unemployment and high incarceration have got to want to not live in poverty and not go to jail....And in order for that to happen apparently they have got to make some changes but first they have got to want to change....Now explain to me how that is racist. In case you didn't know there are plenty of white people living in poverty and being incarcerated, and guess what in order for that to change they have got to want it to change first and foremost..

Because this entire post is meaningless nonsense. The vast majority of people who live in poverty and unemployment want that to change. By replying the way you did, with the text you chose to bold, you clearly were implying that African Americans as a group don't want change. That's how everyone who read it and replied interpreted it.

If you want to walk that back now and say that you actually just meant that some of the people who live in poverty don't want change and that you didn't consider race a variable, fine. That makes absolutely no sense considering the text you chose to highlight and reply to, but whatever.

 

[Jackstraw]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/police-should-stand-down-in-ferguson-mo

Libertarian Party: Police should stand down in Ferguson, MO; end failed drug war

Of course it's not enough that the police are breaking civil rights, no the LP takes it a step past that to their larger agenda.

Some of the statement goes like this

"The militarization of our domestic police forces must end," said Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. "The failed War on Drugs must end. And there's no circumstance in which any government authority should attempt to silence or suppress the news media or people peacefully observing police conduct."

So far, police in Ferguson have placed two reporters under arrest — one for the Washington Post and one for the Huffington Post — along with an observer, a St. Louis alderman.

The Libertarian Party calls on the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments to:

• Release the name of the police officer who shot Michael Brown.
• Let the investigation into the shooting play out without escalating tensions.
• Stop arresting reporters and observers in blatant violation of the First Amendment
• Stand down and withdraw the militarized response.

The Libertarian Party also denounces and demands accountability for protesters who vandalize, loot, and destroy private property and thus victimize innocent small business owners.

Right on. I can get down with all of that. Rand Paul must sequestered somewhere. Like he ran from that immigration activist.

 

[hagmania]

Thanks for making my point for me by showing zero understanding of what Anonymous is or represents. I'm done arguing over such a stupid point.

I am fully aware of what Anon is/represents. Doesn't mean public perception is the same. Should probably not attach too much emotion when responding to [icon].

 

[jamny]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/police-should-stand-down-in-ferguson-mo

Libertarian Party: Police should stand down in Ferguson, MO; end failed drug war

Of course it's not enough that the police are breaking civil rights, no the LP takes it a step past that to their larger agenda.

Some of the statement goes like this

"The militarization of our domestic police forces must end," said Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. "The failed War on Drugs must end. And there's no circumstance in which any government authority should attempt to silence or suppress the news media or people peacefully observing police conduct."

So far, police in Ferguson have placed two reporters under arrest — one for the Washington Post and one for the Huffington Post — along with an observer, a St. Louis alderman.

The Libertarian Party calls on the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments to:

• Release the name of the police officer who shot Michael Brown.
• Let the investigation into the shooting play out without escalating tensions.
• Stop arresting reporters and observers in blatant violation of the First Amendment
• Stand down and withdraw the militarized response.

The Libertarian Party also denounces and demands accountability for protesters who vandalize, loot, and destroy private property and thus victimize innocent small business owners.

Right on. I can get down with all of that. Rand Paul must sequestered somewhere. Like he ran from that immigration activist.

You mean the one where he promised an interview and just asked if he could get a quick bite of his burger, then got up as the "immigration activist" started his questions? You really think he was afraid to talk to that guy? People really need to dial #### back a bit.

 

[[icon]]

Why is it funny that a lackey Twitter employee got a ticket that said "x people reported y account" and hit a button that flipped a 'suspended' flag from 0 to 1 in a database? It has absolutely nothing to do with hacking or Anonymous's reputation as purveyors of (often ill-gotten) information. Do you think they should have "hacked" Twitter to flip it back? Where's the punchline?

You're not this dense, cmon.

"WE R LEGION. WE USE COMPUTAR"

their solely computer-based means of communication gets taken away from them

It's a bit humorous.

However, Anonymous doesn't care, they're willing to accept accounts getting suspended. It's not like they can't make a bajillion more and release it that way.

He's gotta be trolling... nobody's that dense.

Thanks for making my point for me by showing zero understanding of what Anonymous is or represents. I'm done arguing over such a stupid point.

mcintyre1> DAS NOT FUNNAY

Rest of FFA> Actually it's kinda funny

mcintyre1> THANKS FOR MAKING MY POINT! I'M DONE ARGUING

(Also funny, BTW)

 

[Doctor Detroit]

On the second part, it sure looks 2 + 2 = 4 on the war on terror statement.

Do you mean nationwide? How so exactly? What about the responses of big city departments like NYC and Boston? Are those appropriate for their terror concerns? Are smaller town departments maybe applying big city methods when it's not appropriate?

You'd expect that most of the money/materials are going to higher risk areas, but there would be distribution nationwide. Found a number of aritlcles just typing in "war on terror nationwide arming of police" in a search engine. Some of the articles:http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/06/stop-arming-police-military/87163/

http://youviewed.com/2014/06/10/as-foreign-wars-wind-down-pds-nationwide-arm-for-domestic-ones-thanks-to-the-feds/

This was an interesting article. Says the arming of police is partly to "deal with returning veterans who are now seen as a homegrown terror threat" Wild stuff.

http://www.infowars.com/police-now-armed-for-war-against-returning-veterans/

The first article was worth the read, the second seems like nonsense and the third is saying the police are protecting themselves from crazy war vets. Still no tie to the original point though.

 

[tom22406]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/police-should-stand-down-in-ferguson-mo

Libertarian Party: Police should stand down in Ferguson, MO; end failed drug war

Of course it's not enough that the police are breaking civil rights, no the LP takes it a step past that to their larger agenda.

Some of the statement goes like this

"The militarization of our domestic police forces must end," said Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. "The failed War on Drugs must end. And there's no circumstance in which any government authority should attempt to silence or suppress the news media or people peacefully observing police conduct."

So far, police in Ferguson have placed two reporters under arrest — one for the Washington Post and one for the Huffington Post — along with an observer, a St. Louis alderman.

The Libertarian Party calls on the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments to:

• Release the name of the police officer who shot Michael Brown.
• Let the investigation into the shooting play out without escalating tensions.
• Stop arresting reporters and observers in blatant violation of the First Amendment
• Stand down and withdraw the militarized response.

The Libertarian Party also denounces and demands accountability for protesters who vandalize, loot, and destroy private property and thus victimize innocent small business owners.

Right on. I can get down with all of that. Rand Paul must sequestered somewhere. Like he ran from that immigration activist.

You mean the one where he promised an interview and just asked if he could get a quick bite of his burger, then got up as the "immigration activist" started his questions? You really think he was afraid to talk to that guy? People really need to dial #### back a bit.

Posted this a few pages back

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

 

[jonessed]

You didn't care while it was going on but now you complain, why do you think this was happening. This will be the result of the peoples inaction. You did not complain when the government ran all over that rancher in Montana, but now you got issues. Go figure. Welcome to the new USA.

Government Helped Create Fergusons Militarized Police.

August 14, 2014 Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns. As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

A lot of war veterans move into police work as well. The militarization of local police has been driven on a national level. It exists everywhere and is largely a response to the war on terror (in my opinion). It's going to be hard to roll back.

Pretty big reach here don't you think? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? How many ferguson pd members are vets? Other cities? Amount of incidents involving war vets, etc?

I have no idea if it related to this particular incident in Ferguson directly. Im certainly not trying to imply as such. I think it relates to more what I see as an increasing disconnect between police forces and citizens.What aspect are you taking issue with? That war veterans move into police work? I'll see if I can gather some statistics.

Well that you seem to be tying war veterans in with the supposed militarization of police departments. I've never heard this before and wonder if there is some credence to it.

My experience is anecdotal (both with vets and non-vets). At least with regard to the effect of war veterans applying their military experience to their police work. I imagine there are psychological studies I can look to.Are you disagreeing with the militarization of police forces in general or just with vets impacting the militarization? There are a lot of articles on the former. I imagine it's much harder to tease out the direct impact of the latter. I can look around though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/police-should-stand-down-in-ferguson-mo

Libertarian Party: Police should stand down in Ferguson, MO; end failed drug war

Of course it's not enough that the police are breaking civil rights, no the LP takes it a step past that to their larger agenda.

Some of the statement goes like this

"The militarization of our domestic police forces must end," said Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. "The failed War on Drugs must end. And there's no circumstance in which any government authority should attempt to silence or suppress the news media or people peacefully observing police conduct."

So far, police in Ferguson have placed two reporters under arrest — one for the Washington Post and one for the Huffington Post — along with an observer, a St. Louis alderman.

The Libertarian Party calls on the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments to:

• Release the name of the police officer who shot Michael Brown.
• Let the investigation into the shooting play out without escalating tensions.
• Stop arresting reporters and observers in blatant violation of the First Amendment
• Stand down and withdraw the militarized response.

The Libertarian Party also denounces and demands accountability for protesters who vandalize, loot, and destroy private property and thus victimize innocent small business owners.

Right on. I can get down with all of that. Rand Paul must sequestered somewhere. Like he ran from that immigration activist.

You mean the one where he promised an interview and just asked if he could get a quick bite of his burger, then got up as the "immigration activist" started his questions? You really think he was afraid to talk to that guy? People really need to dial #### back a bit.

Posted this a few pages back

http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.

[Gauntlet Thrown].

This is the thing about government Liberals and Progressives just do not want to face. Given resources and power, which the state itself controls btw, those in power will use it to defend themselves and their power.

Tim asked this question further up, he likely won't like the answer.

 

[mcintyre1]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

Somebody want to ask the Liberals/Progressives what our President is doing distributing hardcore military equipment to local police forces?

Pretty sure that falls on Bush. At worst, Obama didn't end the program (but good luck fighting the influence of the military industrial complex that is now getting to sell support for those vehicles that would have otherwise been sent to a scrap heap and retired).

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1

Where did I ever say that they didn't get the equipment? I think I made it pretty clear that it was happening, and it is happening because a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top want it to happen, so it isn't going to stop no matter who is in the White House.

a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top

Who put the president there. Who is the chief executive. Who is Obama (Lib/Prog). Exactly.

ETA - Note just responding to the original question here. Those kinds of questions flow both ways. And apparently the Libertarians have answered.

You've got a pretty deep misunderstanding of what a Progressive person is if you think Obama is Progressive. Left leaning people voted in Obama because he is closer to their views than the GOP alternative, not because he's some paragon of Progressive thought (hint: he's far from it, and so are Hillary and the power players among the Dems). Regardless, we're way out of bounds on this thread at the moment.

To back off the antagonism a bit (I fully acknowledge I've been bad at that so far in this thread), I just want people to understand that both parties have contributed significantly to the problem of police militarization through the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Don't take the easy route and solely blame Obama.

 

[mcintyre1]

Thanks for making my point for me by showing zero understanding of what Anonymous is or represents. I'm done arguing over such a stupid point.

I am fully aware of what Anon is/represents. Doesn't mean public perception is the same. Should probably not attach too much emotion when responding to [icon].

Point well taken, he's an obvious troll.

 

[[icon]]

he's an obvious troll.

only to those who need trolling

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

Somebody want to ask the Liberals/Progressives what our President is doing distributing hardcore military equipment to local police forces?

Pretty sure that falls on Bush. At worst, Obama didn't end the program (but good luck fighting the influence of the military industrial complex that is now getting to sell support for those vehicles that would have otherwise been sent to a scrap heap and retired).

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1

Where did I ever say that they didn't get the equipment? I think I made it pretty clear that it was happening, and it is happening because a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top want it to happen, so it isn't going to stop no matter who is in the White House.

a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top

Who put the president there. Who is the chief executive. Who is Obama (Lib/Prog). Exactly.

ETA - Note just responding to the original question here. Those kinds of questions flow both ways. And apparently the Libertarians have answered.

You've got a pretty deep misunderstanding of what a Progressive person is if you think Obama is Progressive. Left leaning people voted in Obama because he is closer to their views than the GOP alternative, not because he's some paragon of Progressive thought (hint: he's far from it, and so are Hillary and the power players among the Dems). Regardless, we're way out of bounds on this thread at the moment.

To back off the antagonism a bit (I fully acknowledge I've been bad at that so far in this thread), I just want people to understand that both parties have contributed significantly to the problem of police militarization through the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Don't take the easy route and solely blame Obama.

Hey, likewise, I fell into responding to the original post in equal vein. I know what you mean about Progressives and Obama, fully recognize what you're saying.

 

[kentric]

On the second part, it sure looks 2 + 2 = 4 on the war on terror statement.

Do you mean nationwide? How so exactly? What about the responses of big city departments like NYC and Boston? Are those appropriate for their terror concerns? Are smaller town departments maybe applying big city methods when it's not appropriate?

You'd expect that most of the money/materials are going to higher risk areas, but there would be distribution nationwide. Found a number of aritlcles just typing in "war on terror nationwide arming of police" in a search engine. Some of the articles:http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/06/stop-arming-police-military/87163/

http://youviewed.com/2014/06/10/as-foreign-wars-wind-down-pds-nationwide-arm-for-domestic-ones-thanks-to-the-feds/

This was an interesting article. Says the arming of police is partly to "deal with returning veterans who are now seen as a homegrown terror threat" Wild stuff.

http://www.infowars.com/police-now-armed-for-war-against-returning-veterans/

The first article was worth the read, the second seems like nonsense and the third is saying the police are protecting themselves from crazy war vets. Still no tie to the original point though.

My statement of 2 + 2 = 4 was just to indicate that it makes sense that a distribution of army surplus (?) materials to local law enforcement is likely associated with the war on terror/dept of homeland security. To me it makes more political sense than using that type of weaponry for the war on drugs or gang activity - although from a practical perspective, if you were going to make an argument that such force would be more necessary for that. In any case, I don't personally see the need for any such distribution on a large scale (as was the impression I got from the referenced post).

 

[mcintyre1]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

Somebody want to ask the Liberals/Progressives what our President is doing distributing hardcore military equipment to local police forces?

Pretty sure that falls on Bush. At worst, Obama didn't end the program (but good luck fighting the influence of the military industrial complex that is now getting to sell support for those vehicles that would have otherwise been sent to a scrap heap and retired).

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1

Where did I ever say that they didn't get the equipment? I think I made it pretty clear that it was happening, and it is happening because a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top want it to happen, so it isn't going to stop no matter who is in the White House.

a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top

Who put the president there. Who is the chief executive. Who is Obama (Lib/Prog). Exactly.

ETA - Note just responding to the original question here. Those kinds of questions flow both ways. And apparently the Libertarians have answered.

You've got a pretty deep misunderstanding of what a Progressive person is if you think Obama is Progressive. Left leaning people voted in Obama because he is closer to their views than the GOP alternative, not because he's some paragon of Progressive thought (hint: he's far from it, and so are Hillary and the power players among the Dems). Regardless, we're way out of bounds on this thread at the moment.

To back off the antagonism a bit (I fully acknowledge I've been bad at that so far in this thread), I just want people to understand that both parties have contributed significantly to the problem of police militarization through the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Don't take the easy route and solely blame Obama.

Hey, likewise, I fell into responding to the original post in equal vein. I know what you mean about Progressives and Obama, fully recognize what you're saying.

 

[jonessed]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

Somebody want to ask the Liberals/Progressives what our President is doing distributing hardcore military equipment to local police forces?

Pretty sure that falls on Bush. At worst, Obama didn't end the program (but good luck fighting the influence of the military industrial complex that is now getting to sell support for those vehicles that would have otherwise been sent to a scrap heap and retired).

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1

Where did I ever say that they didn't get the equipment? I think I made it pretty clear that it was happening, and it is happening because a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top want it to happen, so it isn't going to stop no matter who is in the White House.

a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top

Who put the president there. Who is the chief executive. Who is Obama (Lib/Prog). Exactly.

ETA - Note just responding to the original question here. Those kinds of questions flow both ways. And apparently the Libertarians have answered.

You've got a pretty deep misunderstanding of what a Progressive person is if you think Obama is Progressive. Left leaning people voted in Obama because he is closer to their views than the GOP alternative, not because he's some paragon of Progressive thought (hint: he's far from it, and so are Hillary and the power players among the Dems). Regardless, we're way out of bounds on this thread at the moment.

To back off the antagonism a bit (I fully acknowledge I've been bad at that so far in this thread), I just want people to understand that both parties have contributed significantly to the problem of police militarization through the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Don't take the easy route and solely blame Obama.

Obama was considered very progressive before he took office (at least by his voting record and statements). I suspect that hasn't entirely changed. If he tried to put forth only progressive ideas though he would never get anything done. A president has to be much more pragmatic than a senator.

I'm not convinced Hillary was ever all that progressive, but I don't know for sure. She strikes me as always having been more pragmatic.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

How's that hope and change working out?

You have just made the worst post in a thread that may contain some of the worst posts of the year. Congratulations.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

You didn't care while it was going on but now you complain, why do you think this was happening. This will be the result of the peoples inaction. You did not complain when the government ran all over that rancher in Montana, but now you got issues. Go figure. Welcome to the new USA.

Government Helped Create Fergusons Militarized Police.

August 14, 2014 Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns. As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

A lot of war veterans move into police work as well. The militarization of local police has been driven on a national level. It exists everywhere and is largely a response to the war on terror (in my opinion). It's going to be hard to roll back.

Pretty big reach here don't you think? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? How many ferguson pd members are vets? Other cities? Amount of incidents involving war vets, etc?

I have no idea if it related to this particular incident in Ferguson directly. Im certainly not trying to imply as such. I think it relates to more what I see as an increasing disconnect between police forces and citizens.What aspect are you taking issue with? That war veterans move into police work? I'll see if I can gather some statistics.

Well that you seem to be tying war veterans in with the supposed militarization of police departments. I've never heard this before and wonder if there is some credence to it.

My experience is anecdotal (both with vets and non-vets). At least with regard to the effect of war veterans applying their military experience to their police work. I imagine there are psychological studies I can look to.Are you disagreeing with the militarization of police forces in general or just with vets impacting the militarization? There are a lot of articles on the former. I imagine it's much harder to tease out the direct impact of the latter. I can look around though.

Only the latter point. I would like to see any link with vets and police forces in general, but believe the militarization aspect comes from decision makers who never went to any wars.The militarization of police forces is part reality, part perception, but is definitely ingrained of the psyche of the public at the moment. There is nothing I can do about that, so there isn't a lot to discuss. Some if the off-the-wall stuff out there is fun to read though.

Eta: posting from mobile device sucks, not sure how some of you do this. Who becomes you, of becomes if, etc. ugh

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The militarization of police forces is part reality, part perception, but is definitely ingrained of the psyche of the public at the moment.

What part of it isn't reality?

 

[jonessed]

You didn't care while it was going on but now you complain, why do you think this was happening. This will be the result of the peoples inaction. You did not complain when the government ran all over that rancher in Montana, but now you got issues. Go figure. Welcome to the new USA.

Government Helped Create Fergusons Militarized Police.

August 14, 2014 Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns. As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

A lot of war veterans move into police work as well. The militarization of local police has been driven on a national level. It exists everywhere and is largely a response to the war on terror (in my opinion). It's going to be hard to roll back.

Pretty big reach here don't you think? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this? How many ferguson pd members are vets? Other cities? Amount of incidents involving war vets, etc?

I have no idea if it related to this particular incident in Ferguson directly. Im certainly not trying to imply as such. I think it relates to more what I see as an increasing disconnect between police forces and citizens.What aspect are you taking issue with? That war veterans move into police work? I'll see if I can gather some statistics.

Well that you seem to be tying war veterans in with the supposed militarization of police departments. I've never heard this before and wonder if there is some credence to it.

My experience is anecdotal (both with vets and non-vets). At least with regard to the effect of war veterans applying their military experience to their police work. I imagine there are psychological studies I can look to.Are you disagreeing with the militarization of police forces in general or just with vets impacting the militarization? There are a lot of articles on the former. I imagine it's much harder to tease out the direct impact of the latter. I can look around though.

Only the latter point. I would like to see any link with vets and police forces in general, but believe the militarization aspect comes from decision makers you never went to any wars.The militarization of police forces is part reality, part perception, but is definitely ingrained of the psyche of the public at the moment. There is nothing I can do about that, so there isn't a lot to discuss. Some if the off-the-wall stuff out there is fun to read though.

Alright. I'll look into it tonight.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

When you all make excuses you are doing a disservice to the millions of successful black people in this world...I guess their success was just a fluke.

Gotta admit, I kind of admire this. To basically say that black people want to be poor, unemployed and in prison ... and then respond to the inevitable WTF? replies by flipping it around to accuse everyone else of being racist. That's something else.

I simply said in order for there to be change you have to want change...Where did I say all black people want to be poor? You can't force change on people. You can provide all of the tools possible for change and it still will not make a difference unless change is wanted. If that is a racist statement, than I am flabbergasted.

Right here you responded to a post that said, among other things, that "African-Americans cannot break out of the cycle of high unemployment, poverty, lack of family structure, and high incarcaration" by highlighting the quoted language and saying that "you have to want change before that change can happen."

Literally the only interpretation of that post I can come up with, including the language you chose to highlight, is that you're saying change won't happen until African-Americans want it, i.e. that they currently don't. If I'm misreading that, feel free to explain what you actually meant.

I actually meant that the African Americans who live in poverty and can't break the cycle of high unemployment and high incarceration have got to want to not live in poverty and not go to jail....And in order for that to happen apparently they have got to make some changes but first they have got to want to change....Now explain to me how that is racist. In case you didn't know there are plenty of white people living in poverty and being incarcerated, and guess what in order for that to change they have got to want it to change first and foremost..

Because this entire post is meaningless nonsense. The vast majority of people who live in poverty and unemployment want that to change. By replying the way you did, with the text you chose to bold, you clearly were implying that African Americans as a group don't want change. That's how everyone who read it and replied interpreted it.

If you want to walk that back now and say that you actually just meant that some of the people who live in poverty don't want change and that you didn't consider race a variable, fine. That makes absolutely no sense considering the text you chose to highlight and reply to, but whatever.

You know this how...Because if you were poor you would want to go out and bust your ### and work your way out of it...There are plenty of people who take the path of least resistance to get through life......And one more time...in order for that to change they have got to want to change.....I really don't understand how you don't understand. But hey if it makes you feel superior or good inside to shout out racist, then have at it.

 

[hagmania]

There a way for me to find if a specific police department was the recipient of military equipment? My Google Fu is lacking the correct terminology at the moment.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Well, I guess Rand decided not to run for the GOP nomination after all...

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot. [...]

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

There a way for me to find if a specific police department was the recipient of military equipment? My Google Fu is lacking the correct terminology at the moment.

Google DOD 1033 program + (whatever police department you're curious about)

may or may not get specific results, but if there's information available, that should get you close.

 

[timschochet]

Well, I guess Rand decided not to run for the GOP nomination after all...

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot. [...]

Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.

Oh he's running. He's trying to expand the base of the Republican party- he's been doing the same thing with regard to the NSA.

If only some of his views (particularly on foreign policy and defense) weren't so crackpot, I might even support him. But I can't.

 

[hagmania]

There a way for me to find if a specific police department was the recipient of military equipment? My Google Fu is lacking the correct terminology at the moment.

Google DOD 1033 program + (whatever police department you're curious about)

may or may not get specific results, but if there's information available, that should get you close.

This is what I was lacking.

Hometown pd apparently has acquired two Hummers "for use in inclement weather" and are looking to obtain an armored vehicle for a "shooting situation." Interesting stuff.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Does anyone believe a member of Congress has the stones to propose a bill that would eliminate or curtail the DoD 1033 program for local LOE?

The moment a member proposes a bill like that, Rep or Dem, their opponents are immediately going to scream "soft on crime." Swirling down the drain....

 

[urbanhack]

When you all make excuses you are doing a disservice to the millions of successful black people in this world...I guess their success was just a fluke.

Gotta admit, I kind of admire this. To basically say that black people want to be poor, unemployed and in prison ... and then respond to the inevitable WTF? replies by flipping it around to accuse everyone else of being racist. That's something else.

I simply said in order for there to be change you have to want change...Where did I say all black people want to be poor? You can't force change on people. You can provide all of the tools possible for change and it still will not make a difference unless change is wanted. If that is a racist statement, than I am flabbergasted.

Right here you responded to a post that said, among other things, that "African-Americans cannot break out of the cycle of high unemployment, poverty, lack of family structure, and high incarcaration" by highlighting the quoted language and saying that "you have to want change before that change can happen."

Literally the only interpretation of that post I can come up with, including the language you chose to highlight, is that you're saying change won't happen until African-Americans want it, i.e. that they currently don't. If I'm misreading that, feel free to explain what you actually meant.

I actually meant that the African Americans who live in poverty and can't break the cycle of high unemployment and high incarceration have got to want to not live in poverty and not go to jail....And in order for that to happen apparently they have got to make some changes but first they have got to want to change....Now explain to me how that is racist. In case you didn't know there are plenty of white people living in poverty and being incarcerated, and guess what in order for that to change they have got to want it to change first and foremost..

Do you think there are people who don't want to live there and are trying to get out, but can't? if so, what percentage do you think it is?

 

[mcintyre1]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

Somebody want to ask the Liberals/Progressives what our President is doing distributing hardcore military equipment to local police forces?

Pretty sure that falls on Bush. At worst, Obama didn't end the program (but good luck fighting the influence of the military industrial complex that is now getting to sell support for those vehicles that would have otherwise been sent to a scrap heap and retired).

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=1

Where did I ever say that they didn't get the equipment? I think I made it pretty clear that it was happening, and it is happening because a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top want it to happen, so it isn't going to stop no matter who is in the White House.

a bunch of wealthy people with influence at the top

Who put the president there. Who is the chief executive. Who is Obama (Lib/Prog). Exactly.

ETA - Note just responding to the original question here. Those kinds of questions flow both ways. And apparently the Libertarians have answered.

You've got a pretty deep misunderstanding of what a Progressive person is if you think Obama is Progressive. Left leaning people voted in Obama because he is closer to their views than the GOP alternative, not because he's some paragon of Progressive thought (hint: he's far from it, and so are Hillary and the power players among the Dems). Regardless, we're way out of bounds on this thread at the moment.

To back off the antagonism a bit (I fully acknowledge I've been bad at that so far in this thread), I just want people to understand that both parties have contributed significantly to the problem of police militarization through the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Don't take the easy route and solely blame Obama.

Obama was considered very progressive before he took office (at least by his voting record and statements). I suspect that hasn't entirely changed. If he tried to put forth only progressive ideas though he would never get anything done. A president has to be much more pragmatic than a senator.

I'm not convinced Hillary was ever all that progressive, but I don't know for sure. She strikes me as always having been more pragmatic.

That's a fair point, I'm whitewashing things a bit from time. I'll agree Progressives had high hopes for him going in.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

When you all make excuses you are doing a disservice to the millions of successful black people in this world...I guess their success was just a fluke.

Gotta admit, I kind of admire this. To basically say that black people want to be poor, unemployed and in prison ... and then respond to the inevitable WTF? replies by flipping it around to accuse everyone else of being racist. That's something else.

I simply said in order for there to be change you have to want change...Where did I say all black people want to be poor? You can't force change on people. You can provide all of the tools possible for change and it still will not make a difference unless change is wanted. If that is a racist statement, than I am flabbergasted.

Right here you responded to a post that said, among other things, that "African-Americans cannot break out of the cycle of high unemployment, poverty, lack of family structure, and high incarcaration" by highlighting the quoted language and saying that "you have to want change before that change can happen."

Literally the only interpretation of that post I can come up with, including the language you chose to highlight, is that you're saying change won't happen until African-Americans want it, i.e. that they currently don't. If I'm misreading that, feel free to explain what you actually meant.

I actually meant that the African Americans who live in poverty and can't break the cycle of high unemployment and high incarceration have got to want to not live in poverty and not go to jail....And in order for that to happen apparently they have got to make some changes but first they have got to want to change....Now explain to me how that is racist. In case you didn't know there are plenty of white people living in poverty and being incarcerated, and guess what in order for that to change they have got to want it to change first and foremost..

Do you think there are people who don't want to live there and are trying to get out, but can't? if so, what percentage do you think it is?

Of course there are people who live there that want to get out.....As far as can't, I think they think they can't.......I hope it is a small %...

 

[Jackstraw]

Wonder where all the libertarians are that had such a hard on for the Cliven Bundy deal? :crickets:

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/police-should-stand-down-in-ferguson-mo

Libertarian Party: Police should stand down in Ferguson, MO; end failed drug war

Of course it's not enough that the police are breaking civil rights, no the LP takes it a step past that to their larger agenda.

Some of the statement goes like this

"The militarization of our domestic police forces must end," said Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. "The failed War on Drugs must end. And there's no circumstance in which any government authority should attempt to silence or suppress the news media or people peacefully observing police conduct."

So far, police in Ferguson have placed two reporters under arrest — one for the Washington Post and one for the Huffington Post — along with an observer, a St. Louis alderman.

The Libertarian Party calls on the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments to:

• Release the name of the police officer who shot Michael Brown.
• Let the investigation into the shooting play out without escalating tensions.
• Stop arresting reporters and observers in blatant violation of the First Amendment
• Stand down and withdraw the militarized response.

The Libertarian Party also denounces and demands accountability for protesters who vandalize, loot, and destroy private property and thus victimize innocent small business owners.

Right on. I can get down with all of that. Rand Paul must sequestered somewhere. Like he ran from that immigration activist.

You mean the one where he promised an interview and just asked if he could get a quick bite of his burger, then got up as the "immigration activist" started his questions? You really think he was afraid to talk to that guy? People really need to dial #### back a bit.

Posted this a few pages backhttp://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

Wow. Good for Rand. I stand corrected.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

Does anyone believe a member of Congress has the stones to propose a bill that would eliminate or curtail the DoD 1033 program for local LOE?

The moment a member proposes a bill like that, Rep or Dem, their opponents are immediately going to scream "soft on crime." Swirling down the drain....

There's probably several. I could see Bernie Sanders introducing a bill like that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Does anyone believe a member of Congress has the stones to propose a bill that would eliminate or curtail the DoD 1033 program for local LOE?

The moment a member proposes a bill like that, Rep or Dem, their opponents are immediately going to scream "soft on crime." Swirling down the drain....

Couldn't Obama just not follow the law or issue an executive order?

This is 100% not snipe, this is a serious question. Why can't he do this?

 

[matttyl]

Any chance Otis can change the thread title to "cop" instead of "cops" (and therefor "shoots" instead of "shoot")? TIA

 

[HellToupee]

Sorry for the lengthy article but it's a good read

“Rise of the Warrior Cop” – Review

by Makis Antzoulatos

While Rise of the Warrior Cop, by Radley Balko, is not the first book documenting the growing militarization of police, it is arguably the most comprehensive and well-researched history of this growing phenomenon. Balko comes out of a libertarian tradition, and Warrior Cop is a development of previous research he had done, most notably a white paper published by the Cato Institute titled Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America.

The book begins by providing a large scale historical look at the notion of police as a paramilitarized force, starting with a discussion of the Roman Centurion guards. Balko goes on to discuss in length the historical framework of the 3rd Amendment, and develops an argument that the 3rd Amendment meant more than the literal quartering of troops, and that in fact the complicity between the U.S. military and domestic law enforcement agencies would be seen as offending the 3rd Amendment in the eyes of the framers. While interesting from a constitutional perspective, this discussion is not the important contribution that Balko makes in Warrior Cop. The most interesting question posed in the first part of the book is whether a paramilitary structure is necessary at all in the organization of local law enforcement agencies. Balko traces the modern police force to 1829 in London, when Sir Robert Peel, in a response to growing urban crime, established a police force to replace the night watchman system. Peel, while seemingly more cognizant of the dangers of militarization than law enforcement architects today, supported the idea of a top-down structure, whose command reflected that found in the military. Understanding this development is important, because before we even get to an analysis of the current state of militarized police practices, we must ask ourselves whether this basic paramilitary resemblance is sustainable and whether such a structure ultimately leads to the situation today where police are armed with grenade launchers and tanks. One small but important concern raised by Balko is the proliferation of “troop to cop programs” which incentivize hiring military veterans. Amongst other factors, these programs suggest that the two jobs are somehow similar and require similar skill sets.

Warrior Cop does an incredible job outlining the political atmosphere that ushered in the first SWAT teams in the United States. This portion of the book is going to be of particular importance to members of the National Lawyers Guild. The book demonstrates clearly that the formation of SWAT teams in the United States was a direct response to liberation struggles by people of color in the United States. Darryl Gates, who was an Inspector with the Los Angeles Police Department, began to develop the idea of a SWAT team in the aftermath of the Watts Rebellion. What is less known, is that Gates adopted many of the ideas for this specialized force from militaristic policing tactics being used in Delano, California against striking members of the United Farm Workers. When Darryl Gates first pitched the idea to his superiors, he called it Special Weapons Attack Team. Even the brass at the LAPD knew this was a bad idea, so a few days later Gates came back with Special Weapons And Tactics, and the modern SWAT team was born. Just as it was conceived as a mechanism to suppress dissent in communities of color, the SWAT team came to life in an attack against the black liberation movement. On December 6, 1969, just two days after Fred Hampton was murdered in Chicago, the LAPD embarked on the first SWAT raid in U.S. history; an attack on the Los Angeles Black Panther office. Over 250 police officers engaged in a 3-hour fire fight, where 5,000 rounds of ammunition were fired, and ultimately Darryl Gates received permission from the Department of Defense to procure a grenade launcher from the Marine base at Camp Pendleton.

Over the next 40 years, the proliferation of SWAT forces is almost unbelievable. By 2005, over 80% of towns with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 people had SWAT teams, and the total number of raids per year reached 50,000.

By the late 1970’s, the government had found the next justification for the growing militarization of police in the United States: The War on Drugs. The militarization of drug investigations has brought countless horror stories, and Balko gives a good sampling of anecdotes about militarized raids gone wrong. He discusses the history and current status of two federal programs which have fueled this militarization. First, Byrne Grants were developed in 1988 to allow for the creation of multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, armed with heavy military hardware. It was a task force set up under this program that was responsible for the 1999 pre-dawn raid on Tulia, Texas, where black-masked SWAT members arrested 10% of the town’s black population, based on what was later uncovered to be made-up drug transactions. By 2004, all 46 people had been exonerated. The second is the 1033 Program, a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, that, as of 1997, has allowed the Pentagon to reutilize military hardware by giving it to local law enforcement. In FY2011, $500 million dollars in property was reutilized.

What is most notable in Balko’s research is the manner in which all aspects of policing have been swept up in the drive to militarize, even programs that at first glance appear to be inapposite to the goal of militarization. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program of the DOJ was established as part of the 1994 Joe Biden led omnibus crime bill. The term “community policing” sounds antithetical to increased militarization, however Balko points out significant research showing that lack of oversight and agreement on what the term “community policing” means has led to perverse results, with many law enforcement agencies considering SWAT raids and SWAT patrols of communities, an integral part of community policing.

What Balko does not let us forget, is that many of these programs came about, or were strengthened, during the 1990’s, when Joe Biden was a leading figure in the Senate on crime issues. As a result, these programs have long been touted by Biden as sound police policy. During the George W. Bush administration, Byrne grant funding fell to $170 million dollars per year, but in 2009 the Obama administration infused this program with $2 billion dollars in funding as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We have seen similar increases in funding for the COPS program, as well as the “1033” giveaways. The “War on Terror” has provided the most recent justification for increasing militarization, with the Department of Homeland Security handing out $34 billion dollars in anti-terror grants by 2011. This money has been spent on everything from Armored Personnel Carriers to tanks to bomb detonating equipment to grenade launchers and even drones.

What we can see at this point is that militarization has become the norm for law enforcement agencies, and any excuse to justify that progression will be used. First it was rebellions in communities of color, next it was the drug war, and now it has become the “War on Terror.” Regardless of the justification, police departments are now shrouded in militarism from wearing battle fatigues to procuring armored personnel carriers, and the military industrial complex has devolved sophisticated targeted advertising for this equipment. Law enforcement agencies often justify these purchases by touting the dangers of the job. Balko discusses a common sentiment amongst officers that they will do “anything just to get home tonight.” But with only 51 officers slain in 2005, out of a nationwide total of 800,000 law enforcement officers, this threat is largely imagined and exaggerated. Another area that should be looked at is the role that increased militarization has played in the policing of protest movements. This is not touched on as much in Balko’s book, and I look forward to a book being released in May by Canadian sociologist and activist Lesley Wood titled Crisis and Control: The Militarization of Protest Policing.

Warrior Cop includes some encouraging stories about jurisdictions that rejected the drive towards militarism. Washington, D.C. rejected the trend in the 1970′s and saw favorable results. Likewise, San Diego made a concerted effort to address a botched militarized raid in 1990 and came up with new strategies for “community policing.” Since then, San Diego has enjoyed some of the lowest crime rates in the country, and a significant decrease in police violence.

Balko tells a story that needs to be heard, and provides the information to begin a real discussion on the character of law enforcement agencies around the country. If I have one criticism of his analysis, it is Balko’s failure to analyze these developments as part of a larger critique of the role the police play in oppressing poor communities, and specifically communities of color. Balko, to his credit, highlights how much of the militarization over the past 40 years has been disproportionately waged against communities of color. However, there is an implicit suggestion throughout the book that at some point in history there was a time when police were not a threat. As we know, the relationship between police and marginalized communities has always been marred by violence and oppression, and this dynamic long precedes the growth of militarization within law enforcement.

- Makis Antzoulatos is a public defender with CPCS in Boston. He is a member of the NLG Mass Defense Committee and serves on the NLG Board of Directors. -

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Just read that the Highway Patrol is taking over. So now it's Super Troopers.

 

[fantasycurse42]

The only news I'm tracking right now is this Ferguson story,,, between here and media

Can't decide if this thread or Ferguson is the bigger wreck.

 

[kentric]

Just read that the Highway Patrol is taking over. So now it's Super Troopers.

Prefered Starship Troopers.

 

[Parrothead]

Just read that the Highway Patrol is taking over. So now it's Super Troopers.

Prefered Starship Troopers.

http://famonthelam.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PonchAndJohn.jpg help is on the way

 

[Widbil83]

"Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) called on President Barack Obama to declare martial law in Ferguson"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/14/john-lewis-ferguson_n_5679033.html

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

Just read that the Highway Patrol is taking over. So now it's Super Troopers.

Prefered Starship Troopers.

You're nuts.