228331 Bullies, 4521 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 144
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,329

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 12:14am


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassius View Post
    Just to clarify: I am not against no knock raids entirely. I object to their use to serve warrants for non-violent and/or consensual crimes. As for violent criminals, as a colleague of mine who is at the USMS once said: "If I'm serving a violent criminal with a warrant, **** going into his house. That's how you get shot. I'm gonna wait until he leaves and then sneak up on him when he's at a gas station taking a piss."

    I realize there are a ton of situations where that is not feasible and police have to raid the house, but the quote is still funny.
    Don't read too much into "what" the warrant was for, the reason for the warrant is but one factor in a threat assessment...and a low value one at that.

    What if the target in your "only a marijuana warrant" is on parole for murder?

    What if the target has a criminal history of resisting/violence/weapons?

    What if the confidential informant in the case tells you he has seen weapons in the residence and the target and his 3 brothers are all known gang members?

    What if the structure is known to be barricaded and you need breaching expertise?

    What if the real investigatory purpose is to get a violent probationer known to be involved in criminal enterprise back behind bars and the most solid case you have is a "marijuana warrant"?

    The "they used SWAT only for a xxxxxx warrant" is meaningless when it comes to a valid reason to use SWAT...to someone who knows what valid reasons are.

    And I'm all for outside the house takedowns IF they are possible. The sad fact of the matter is that SWAT team activations come with an OT bill...many Chiefs are not gonna be too keen on sitting on a target for an unknown timeframe to do a takedown. Most takedown operations are done by my unit vs SWAT as long as the threat assessment doesn't mandate SWAT.

    Is all this to say that I don't think many PD's are NOT misusing their Teams? Hell no...I KNOW that some are. But the "Militarization" thing is a tad hyperbolic IMO.
    Last edited by tgace; 7/21/2013 12:21am at .
  2. Cassius is offline
    Cassius's Avatar

    Moderator

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,990

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 12:19am

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrost View Post
    The Guard probably isn't the best solution; it's still military used against civilians.

    This just popped ip in my news feed:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Bullshido - No BS MMA mobile app
    You realize that's the article I linked to in the OP, right?

    In terms of distinguishing military from police, my opinion is that perception is reality. Police should strive to NOT look like the military.

    More food for thought:

    http://www.cato.org/raidmap
    "No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal
  3. Phrost is offline
    Phrost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 1998
    Location
    Cow Town
    Posts
    19,115

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 12:23am

    Business Class Supporting Memberstaff
     Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats Style: MMA (Retired)

    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Ha, no I didn't. Was browsing on my phone when I saw that.

    I realize that ACUs are cheaper and generally better (than some of the crap out there), but the distinction is more important. Cops should be cops, should look like cops, not soldiers. It's obvious that some cops who dress like soldiers, want to play soldier more than they want to get cats out of trees and help old ladies cross the street.

    Hell, I've even heard cops refer to non-cops as "civilians". Cops are civilians too, except for those who are currently serving in a reserve status for the military.
  4. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,329

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 12:38am


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Eh..the whole LEO/Civilian discussion.

    I think there's a difference between using the terms to describe/discuss the fact that police:

    1. Are sworn members of a government quasi-military organization.

    2. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

    3. They are given legal authority by their agency and state or federal law which exceeds any legal authority possessed by other citizens.

    and using the term as a class differentiation.

    Webster even defines Civilian as:

    Definition of CIVILIAN
    1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
    2a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

    ...I agree with the sentiment and the idea that officers should think of themselves as members of their community, we are all subject to the same laws. But I wouldn't get too twisted with the words when used in general discussion.

    In my PD we have non-sworn persons who work there..they are termed "civilian employees" but could also be termed "non-sworn". LE/Civilian is generally better understood in discussion than Sworn/Non-Sworn is (except perhaps by other Cops).

    I think that in colloquial use it's not a big deal to refer to police as non-civilians casually, but in a formal or official context it would not be appropriate.

    I've never referred to a non-le as a civilian when I was off duty....
    Last edited by tgace; 7/21/2013 12:47am at .
  5. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,329

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 12:41am


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrost View Post
    Ha, no I didn't. Was browsing on my phone when I saw that.

    I realize that ACUs are cheaper and generally better (than some of the crap out there), but the distinction is more important. Cops should be cops, should look like cops, not soldiers. It's obvious that some cops who dress like soldiers, want to play soldier more than they want to get cats out of trees and help old ladies cross the street.

    Hell, I've even heard cops refer to non-cops as "civilians". Cops are civilians too, except for those who are currently serving in a reserve status for the military.
    Well...we do things in the SWAT role that we don't do in Patrol. Low crawling to a sniper position during a hostage call-out in a patrol uniform wouldn't make much sense.
  6. Phrost is offline
    Phrost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 1998
    Location
    Cow Town
    Posts
    19,115

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 12:47am

    Business Class Supporting Memberstaff
     Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats Style: MMA (Retired)

    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The reason why it's important is to not make that distinction is again, because police should not see themselves as different from the communities they police. The "us vs. them" thing is bad enough that those of us that are a part of the "them", have taken notice of it, and even those of us that are pro-police are getting a bit fed up with the massive sense of entitlement to authority.

    For example, the Florida officer who pulled over an off duty cop who was going 30+ over the speed limit to get to his part time job, and got harassed and trashed on the Internet by other cops who were pissed that she didn't just let him off; she actually gave him the ticket.

    If anything, the police should be held to a much higher standard of law, not above it.
  7. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,329

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 12:52am


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Phrost View Post
    For example, the Florida officer who pulled over an off duty cop who was going 30+ over the speed limit to get to his part time job, and got harassed and trashed on the Internet by other cops who were pissed that she didn't just let him off; she actually gave him the ticket.

    If anything, the police should be
    Her problem was a car chase and pulling a gun on a guy she knew was a cop in a marked unit. Should she have let him go? No..but there are many other ways to deal with problem cops than armed encounters with each other. I have handled a few situations of that type myself. Unlike an encounter with you which may result in a ticket...I have ways to jeopardize his job if I have to.
  8. dwkfym is offline
    dwkfym's Avatar

    Yours truly

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay Area
    Posts
    2,017

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 4:40am

    Business Class Supporting Member
     PDS Rifles Style: Univ. Florida Kickboxing

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by tgace View Post
    Gear and equipment isn't "militarization".....application is.
    This.

    What is the definition of military equipment anyways? Except for the very latest in night vision and thermal equipment, target designators, and certain explosives and vehicles, civilians have access to it. At least almost all of the equipment under discussion (body armor, firearms, etc), civilians have access to.

    Its largely a rhetorical discussion that doesn't really make sense once you think about it. The tactics and application differ wildly. The purpose and end-goal differs. One is intended to destroy and defeat the enemy. The other is designed to preserve life, or life of others with minimal negative affects to the general public.
    www.pdsrifles.com Add us on facebook!
    Parts and Accessories
    Law Enforcement Firearms
  9. dwkfym is offline
    dwkfym's Avatar

    Yours truly

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa Bay Area
    Posts
    2,017

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 4:47am

    Business Class Supporting Member
     PDS Rifles Style: Univ. Florida Kickboxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassius View Post
    You realize that's the article I linked to in the OP, right?

    In terms of distinguishing military from police, my opinion is that perception is reality. Police should strive to NOT look like the military.

    More food for thought:

    http://www.cato.org/raidmap
    Believe it or not, most cops seek to NOT look like the military. Yeah, I'm sure there are some who want to look like Rambo every chance they get, but as a matter of policy, they are trying not to look like the military.

    For example, one of my customer departments are looking into our uniforms for use in more tactical environments. Yes, it is a battle dress uniform, but they want the ripstop material for breathability and durability. They purposefully chose to go with BDUs instead of Jump suits, TDUs or ACUs that are less outdated. Because it was the most 'dressier' uniform that still met the utility requirements for the intended application.
    '
    We do make a few modifications to it that makes it much more practical to use under body armor and what not.

    Its driven by practical needs. In the prohibition days, police started using fully automatic weapons to match the state of the art in criminal weapons. That move was probably more 'military' than anything the police does today. (though, IMO, what was worse in making that any police decision seem 'military' is the fact that select fire weapons were heavily regulated after 1934, making availability more exclusive to the military and police)

    We can see a steady movement from revolvers to automatic handguns. Today virtually all law enforcement agencies use automatic, higher capacity handguns.

    This 'issue' of militarization of the police may be a lot older than we think. However, it is purely driven by the criminal threat, which happens to track the changing technologies. Its just a natural progression. Before fully automatic weapons were cheap to manufacture, criminals did not use them. Neither did the police. Before automatic handguns replaced the revolver as the handgun of choice, police did not see a need to pack additional firepower into issue handguns.

    This 'trend' simply follows two things: 1. The state of the art in equipment 2. The need for police to stay a step ahead of threats they face.
    Last edited by dwkfym; 7/21/2013 5:12am at .
    www.pdsrifles.com Add us on facebook!
    Parts and Accessories
    Law Enforcement Firearms
  10. Phrost is offline
    Phrost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 1998
    Location
    Cow Town
    Posts
    19,115

    Posted On:
    7/21/2013 9:20am

    Business Class Supporting Memberstaff
     Guy Who Pays the Bills and Gets the Death Threats Style: MMA (Retired)

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    What's awesome is to get direct feedback on this discussion without it descending into...



    Which is common on the Internet.
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12 345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.