
SWAT-Team Nation: The Militarization of the U.S. Police - georgecmu
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/swat-team-nation.html
======
jonkelly
In the late 90's, the CEO of our startup told us about a raid on his Palo Alto
home. His daughter was away at camp for the summer and his wife had mailed her
a care package that included laundry detergent. As they later found out,
detergent can be used as a masking agent for drugs.

A few days after the package was sent, Law Enforcement (DEA & local police,
IIRC) surrounded the house. Luckily, back in the good old days, they didn't
break the door down and start shooting, at least not in Palo Alto. They
knocked, were let in, and asked the CEO's wife to open the package that the
police had intercepted, upon which the laundry detergent was discovered.

The point I want to make about this whole category of problems, that seem to
mock the 4th Amendment (NSA surveillance, civil asset forfeiture,
militarization of police, etc.) is that we should be far more worried about
incompetence than malice. We keep getting warned that these things are a
pathway to tyranny but frankly, that may or may not happen. Horrific
incompetence that ruins people's lives is with us today, at scale, and the
problems grow with the power, money and technology given to those that wield
them. We now have no-recourse no-fly lists, police raids on wrong houses that
kill homeowners (so often it's no longer newsworthy), and sick elderly parents
fighting for their house because their kid sold $20 worth of weed from the
front porch (the latter from Sarah Stillman's other excellent New Yorker
article).

Back in Palo Alto, it would have taken almost zero competent police work to
determine that the care package containing laundry soap, sent to a summer camp
from the home of two working professionals was almost certainly not masking
drugs. But instead, complete careless incompetence.

We've talked a lot lately about the danger that we are on the road to 1984 or
Brave New World. Right now, I'm much more concerned that many of our fellow
citizens are already living in the movie Brazil.

~~~
stcredzero
The lack of accountability for incompetent authorities is part and parcel of
tyranny.

~~~
hga
One of the characteristics of a police state is the police can get away with
most anything. Nor do they have to be very careful about getting and
convicting the right suspect.

~~~
stcredzero
The key thing to remember is that a police state is not necessarily a source
of evil. It's merely a condition that can easily allow evil to happen. If you
do not clean your room, it will get messy because the corrective mechanism has
been switched off. In a police state, the authorities can do evil things
because mechanisms of accountability have been switched off. The authorities
can be good or evil, but either way, they will get away with bad things.

This explains how police states can come about incrementally, through numerous
incremental changes that erode freedoms and checks and balances.

~~~
hga
Sorry, but I'm with Lord Acton, " _Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely._ " You're welcome to point out examples of kind and gentle police
states, I'd try Japan first, but I don't think you're going to get very far.

You may have a point in your last sentence, but I don't see how it derives
from the previous paragraph.

~~~
lukifer
The full quote is: "Power _tends_ to corrupt, absolute power corrupts
absolutely."

The police and the public both deserve an appropriate level of power; to lack
power is to lack agency. Occasionally that power will be abused by either
party. But as power becomes unbalanced towards any person or group, corruption
becomes nearly guaranteed, whether through malice, indifference, or
incompetence.

~~~
hga
You're right in all counts, and I'm ashamed I forgot the correct version of
the quote. Thanks for the correction.

Continuing this line, right now the casualties are so one sided because the
public is understandably very reluctant to shoot the police, even when that
results in their immediate death. If that changes....

~~~
lukifer
I've found myself thinking a lot about this recently: the asymmetry of self-
defense.

In a civilized society, we outsource our violence to police and other
agencies, with mostly net-positive results. If the police are wrong, our self-
defense moves instead into the realm of courts and law (setting aside the
flaws with those systems).

However, extreme abuses of police power change the equation. While there are
obviously reasonable circumstances for a cop to execute you without trial
(when you are posing an immediate danger), there are effectively zero
circumstances where you are allowed to physically defend yourself against the
police.

I'm not necessarily advocating that there should be a circumstance when it's
okay to shoot a cop; rather, that there are behavioral and social side effects
from that intrinsic asymmetry, which affects the relationship between the
necesseties of state violence, the legal system that supports them, and the
civilians caught in the middle, innocent or otherwise.

I've also been thinking about it in the context of drones and anti-insurgent
warfare. In conventional war, the enemy is dehumanized generally, but no one
is demonized for shooting back: it's expected behavior. But in the context of
quasi-occupation, civilians have neither legal nor physical recourses for
defense. Picking up a weapon automatically marks you as the enemy; your only
defense is to do nothing and hope that your drone pilot is accurate and
merciful. The typical rhetoric is that terrorists are the worst of the worst
because they are willing to kill civilians, which I would agree with; yet
wielding a gun against a uniformed soldier or even a drone effectively marks
you as a terrorist all the same.

I don't own guns, and never plan to; while I'm not a knee-jerk pacifist, it's
very important to me never to take a life, a pledge I would only break in the
most extreme of circumstances. But I certainly hold a great deal of empathy
for those who feel the need to take personal defense into their own hands, and
I believe there is a solid case for seeing self-defense as an inalienable
human right.

(At this point, I wonder if the best self-defense at home or abroad might be
to capture or stream video 24 hours a day...)

~~~
hga
" _In a civilized society, we outsource our violence to police and other
agencies...._ "

I suspect you'll not be surprised that I strongly disagree. Honest police (I
gather most of them, in fact) know they can't be everywhere, e.g. "When
seconds count, the police are minutes away." Worse, it's well established in
the courts that police have absolutely no duty to protect anyone in
particular; the most recent case is particularly stark, on a subway Joseph
Lozito subdued a knife wielding assailant taking quite a few injuries while
the NYPD officers there cowered and locked themselves away.

Hmmm, have you ever lived in an area where concealed carry is shall issue and
self-defense was encouraged by the local authorities? In my home town, which
I've retired to, they went so far as to say a woman had an "absolute right" to
use lethal force against some home invaders, and the staff of the required
concealed carry class I and my father took were all active duty police
officers who were entirely supportive of citizen self-defense.

I wonder if your take on drone warfare is a bit off. Haven't followed
Afghanistan that closely, but I know during our occupation of Iraq we allowed
people to retain an AK-47 for self-defense, "picking up a weapon" was _not_ an
automatic mark of an enemy. Context mattered, and I strongly expect does in
Afghanistan. Pick up a weapon and move towards an allied unit, likely enemy.
Outside of that context, isn't so clear, especially in such an well armed
society.

And you at least in part recognize that, " _wielding a gun against a uniformed
soldier or even a drone effectively marks you as a terrorist_ ", although I'd
substitute enemy for "terrorist", and enemy is quite enough to allow for a
violent response.

~~~
lukifer
> have you ever lived in an area where concealed carry is shall issue and
> self-defense was encouraged by the local authorities?

I have not, I have talked to several Texans for whom this is the case, given
that police help was 45 minutes away. It enriched my perspective on gun
culture quite a bit.

> I wonder if your take on drone warfare is a bit off.

Yeah, I'll admit that I'm not exactly extrapolating from intimate knowledge of
details. And you're right that "enemy combatant" is the term generally used. I
do still think that is an imbalance in that is effectively impossible for us
to see those combatants as legitimate in the same way as the social construct
of "soldier", because they fight for a sect or tribe rather than a nation-
state. But then, past wars have often involved pre-emptively describing the
enemy as sub-human, so perhaps it's just more of the same, if not a slight
improvement.

I'd be very curious to learn if there has been any attempt to "sharp-shoot" or
otherwise physically defend against drones. Or do they simply strike from too
far away for this to be feasible?

Also, I'd wager ten-to-one that in the next decade, we'll see a Supreme Court
ruling on whether personal defense drones are covered by the 2nd amendment.

~~~
hga
Well, there's the concept of _unlawful_ combatant per the Geneva Convention,
which allows most any fate including summary execution on the battlefield. To
not be an unlawful combatant is not that difficult, e.g. it requires things
like a command structure and identifying clothing on the field, an armband
will do. Fighting for a nation-state is not required.

According to Wikipedia, the standard Hellfire II missiles the Predator and
Reaper drones use have a long range, 546 yd – 5 mi/500 m – 8 km, although
these models can't operate farther than the laser designator can reach. No
"sharpshooter", that is individual rifleman shooting a battle rifle cartridge
has no practical chance. _Maybe_ someone using a general purpose machine gun
or better with plenty of tracer rounds in the belt, but of course that's going
to be rather obvious to the operators and invite getting out of range and
firing a Hellfire back. Hmmm, looking at heaver USSR/Russian stuff, these
drones would be able to easily keep out of range of even the famous ZSU-23-4 4
cannon mobile AA weapon system, SAMs are going to be required.

I don't expect a Supreme Court decision, unless unfavorable, they're _very_
reluctant to take up 2nd amendment cases. E.g. only one 20th Century case in
1939, then _Heller_ in 2008 and *McDonald 2010. Since then I believe they've
denied cert to every case that's come to them, although in terms of "clean"
cases (e.g. not a criminal trying a Hail Mary appeal he's going to lose) as I
recall only a concealed carry one in New York state, despite there being a
circuit split with the one covering Illinois. We'll see, but I at least am not
that hopeful. They will get more opportunities on concealed carry, e.g. from
the circuit covering Maryland, and I think another.

------
josh2600
I have an experience to relate about the small town I grew up in (Bay Area).

While I was a youngster I had numerous run ins with the local cops. Nothing
serious, but I remember feeling mistreated, literally manhandled by the
officers to this day.

Tangentially, the town I grew up in is not typically thought of as violent,
but several folks in my high school class were violently murdered over the
years. We've also had the misfortune to experience a few other heinous crimes
which don't deserve to be repeated in polite company.

The local police basically failed, but a few years ago the county sheriffs
took over.

Whereas, as a youngster I had numerous bad encounters with local authorities,
now the sheriffs wave to me when I drive through town and I see them with the
local kids working more like local cops.

I've never been a fan of the police, but this has been a welcome change in my
community. I realize the visibility of age can change your relationship with
authority but I think there was a cultural change as well.

Now, on the other hand, I'm also painfully aware of the shenanigans that
police pull all over the US. The incidents of police brutality are too
numerous to mention, and the justice dispensed is a pitiable counterweight
(I'm referring to the prosecution of police brutality, not the justice of the
police action, for clarity's sake).

I think there are too many weapons in America in general, and the
militarization of the police is just another example of that. There's always
the part of this argument where someone yells "but why can we see people
getting shot on the television but we can't see sex?".

I think the militarization of the police has become a part of American culture
and that my experience with my local authorities is an outlier. I wish the
culture of our police was based around community development and not
militarization.

~~~
67726e
> I wish the culture of our police was based around community development and
> not militarization.

There is something funny about that sentence. We have police imitating
military yet the US military, during the current Iraq/Afghanistan "military
operation", came to realize that a "knock-and-talk" approach was/is more
effective than "kick-in-the-door" night raids while looking for insurgents.

~~~
mr_luc
That's an interesting connection, thanks for sharing it.

I wonder if that's because the US military felt it had/has its back to the
wall in terms of the success of its mission, and thus was forced to do the
more effective thing, even though it's a bit outside of the purpose of their
organization.

Conversely, police departments aren't under that much pressure to perform. Our
country is experiencing a peace wave.

Instead, they're free to worry only about protecting their turf and increasing
their budgets, through wasteful vanity projects like their tremendously
overused SWAT teams, and over-targeting non-violent drug users.

~~~
kvcrawford
I think it has to do with oversight. There's a strong precedent for the
international community to hold a country's leaders as responsible for their
military's actions. The chain of command reflects that.

Compare that to internal affairs in law enforcement. It's a terrible joke.

There are also fiscal pressures, in the way budgets are set, and with civil
asset forfeiture. The US military budget is not set by how many kills they
get, and units are not permitted to pillage and plunder the countries they
invade.

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting to have this come out when yesterday the Sunnyvale police drove
their tank over to a house where someone had called in reporting a murder,
they asked the person to come out and then immediately shot him dead.

Three things bothered me about this;

1) WTF does the Sunnyvale police force need with an Armored Personnel Carrier?
Seriously.

2) How is it you go from 'come out with your hands up' to shooting the guy
dead as soon as he is visible?

3) What is the motivation for responding that 'hard'? You send a couple of
squad cars, not a military unit.

So it looks like we need to change things slap down the police again. (this
happened in the early 70's as well apparently (didn't live here then) when
they initially were gearing up to fight drugs).

~~~
mtgx
What I want to know is _who gives them this much money, and why?_. I thought
the US economy was still in pretty poor shape, and they pretend to argue for
months of stuff like $80 billion sequester, when they're probably giving more
than that per year to police departments to buy military equipment like this
and be trained by the DHS and the Israeli military.

Again - why? Why is the police becoming para-military? Do they fear another
major protest and want to respond in force? What's the motivation behind all
this.

~~~
betterunix
"What I want to know is who gives them this much money, and why?"

Nobody gives the police this money. The police _take_ the money from people
they arrest. It is called asset forfeiture, it is legal, and it is widely used
by police departments to pay for all that expensive military equipment they
use.

"Why is the police becoming para-military?"

To gain more power over the population, to arrest more people, and to funnel
more money to the well-connected corporations that benefit from this sort of
tyranny.

~~~
Retric
Unless that's enough to fully fund the police it's easy enough to divert funds
based on that extra income.

------
danso
When I ponder why the War on Drugs continues, even on fronts that have been
pretty well settled (marijuana), I don't think it takes much more thought
beyond understanding money and bureaucracy.

Political and law enforcement agencies have been fueled by federal money and
grants, which they've poured into militarizing the police. You stop the War on
Drugs, then you stop that money flow. These former warriors may not experience
a net-loss in pay or jobs, but they get kicked back to office duty, their
departments are slashed...at some point, some middle manager or higher-level
exec loses their exciting, plum job. It just takes a bunch of these to
continue pushing the idea of the War on Drugs, and it has nothing to do with
the actual harm of drugs.

This is related to the militarization of police because that's what agencies
happened to pour their money into (well, can you blame them? The top level of
fed government called it a " _War_ on Drugs"). Imagine if they poured that
money into fighting the drug problem, but through social services. We'd be
complaining about the nanny-state of social services, but somehow, I'd think
that be a much more pleasant situation than turning cops into heavily armed
community warriors.

------
grecy
> _Some forty Detroit police officers dressed in commando gear ordered the
> gallery attendees to line up on their knees, then took their car keys and
> confiscated their vehicles...(More than forty cars were seized, and owners
> paid around a thousand dollars each to get them back.)_

So the people were not arrested, or charged with crimes, yet their personal
property was confiscated by the Police.

Can a Police officer walk up to me on the street and take my wallet and keys?
I don't think so, so why can they do it here?

In all seriousness, it's shocking and scary the Police can do whatever the
hell they want to.

~~~
speeder
How is this different from highway robbery or privateering?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
This is sanctioned by the State.

~~~
speeder
That was the difference between privateers and pirates

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
What's it called when a state unleashes privateers on its citizens?

~~~
hga
Civil War.

------
badman_ting
The police can do what they want, without repercussions. (OK, if they _really_
screw up, they get suspended with pay.) We traded one class of criminals for
another. The Joker would be pleased, I reckon.

------
dreamdu5t
The police broke into our home when I was 12 based on an anonymous tip from a
kid I didn't know at school that I was selling cocaine.

They let themselves in our home after waiting for my parents to leave one day,
confronted me, then attempted to plant evidence in our garbage can (and didn't
because I was smart enough at 12 to question why they were putting something
IN our garbage can).

All because of another kid at school (12 years old!!!) I didn't know telling
_one_ adult that I sold cocaine, without any evidence.

~~~
billybob255
So the police stopped planting evidence because a 12 year old called them out
on it? This sounds like a made up story.

~~~
hga
Nah, you can assume at least one of them had a slumbering conscience that was
awakened, and/or they weren't willing to kill the 12 year old witness and knew
his testimony plus perhaps forensics would reveal, or at least put into
sufficient question, their planting of evidence.

------
smacktoward
I'm as troubled by the militarization of the police in America as anybody, but
I'm also a bit troubled by how few of the stories deploring it note that it
didn't occur in a vacuum. It grew out of encounters in the 1980s and 1990s
where police found themselves drastically outgunned by people they were
attempting to arrest.

Here's a couple of examples:

* The 1986 FBI Miami shootout ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout)): eight FBI agents armed with revolvers and shotguns confronted two suspects, one armed with a Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic carbine. The two suspects were killed, but not before killing two of the FBI agents and wounding five others. The ensuing FBI investigation cited the insufficient stopping power of the agents' service revolvers and the difficulty of reloading a revolver while under fire as key problems, and led to the Bureau moving from revolvers to automatic pistols chambered in a heavier caliber (which eventually became standardized as .40 Smith & Wesson).

* The 1997 North Hollywood shootout ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout)): officers of the Los Angeles Police Department armed mostly with 9mm and .38 Special pistols confronted two bank robbers wearing body armor and wielding fully automatic rifles fitted with high capacity magazines. The officers quickly found that rounds fired from their pistols could not penetrate the robbers' body armor. A SWAT team armed with AR-15 rifles was called and eventually managed to bring them down, but not before eleven officers and six civilians had been wounded. Many metropolitan police forces began moving to arm more officers with rifles like the AR-15/M-16 as a result.

None of this justifies using SWAT tactics against unarmed civilians in a civil
forfeiture case, of course. But it helps to explain how and why the firepower
of police today is so much greater than it was, say, twenty-five years ago,
and why the SWAT mindset grew from a small corner of the law-enforcement mind
to something more front and center. (The other piece of the story is 9/11,
which opened a floodgate of money and materiel to local law enforcement in the
name of homeland security.)

~~~
alexeisadeski3
I don't think that this is related at all, actually.

Criminals have been outgunning police for ages. It's literally impossible for
police to have proper weapons deployed at every location at every time - just
as it is literally impossible for the Marines in Afghanistan to have proper
weapons at every place at every time. The criminals have the advantage of
choosing when and where their crimes are committed, and the police the
disadvantage of having to respond. This has been going on for thousands of
years in all nations, yet this militarization is largely an American
phenomenon.

~~~
smacktoward
There's plenty of documentation showing how these shootouts led directly to
American police forces up-arming themselves. For example, see this
([http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/miami-shootout-20th-
anniver...](http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/miami-shootout-20th-anniversary-
memorial-service)) 2006 speech by John Pistole, then Deputy Director of the
FBI (now TSA Administrator):

 _What also undoubtedly saved future lives were the lessons learned that
day—lessons that transformed law enforcement tactics and training. Most
immediately, special agents were issued semi-automatic handguns to replace the
revolvers that many of the agents carried that day._

Or this
([http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/print/stor...](http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/print/story/2012/02/how-
the-north-hollywood-shootout-changed-patrol-rifles.aspx)) article from Police,
"The Law Enforcement Magazine":

 _The [1997 North Hollywood] shootout gave law enforcement a compelling reason
to better arm patrol officers with semi-automatic rifles._

There's plenty of room to argue whether this up-arming was an _appropriate_
response to these events, but that's a very different question than whether or
not they were connected.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
That evidence does not address the issue.

In order to show cause and effect, you must account for the other experimental
groups (nations) which were subjected to the same stimuli yet reacted
differently (far less than 2.7 SWAT raids per 10,000 residents).

~~~
smacktoward
Again, these are different questions. You're talking about establishing a
statistical model to determine whether nations, in general, would respond to
such incidents the way the US did. I'm talking strictly about establishing why
the US did what it did.

If your point is that America is an outlier in this regard, I agree with you!
But when you're trying to establish cause and effect in _one specific case_ it
doesn't really matter what other data points outside that case say. What
matters is the internal dynamics specific to that case.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
When the specific causes are not unique but are shared amongst many other
experimental sets, then yes you must explain why the cause had one effect in
your set but did not have that effect in the other sets.

------
_delirium
A related earlier discussion with some interesting comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6022638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6022638)

(That discussion is not about the same story, but both stories are about the
same Radley Balko book.)

------
betterunix
"When does it make sense to use machine guns, armored vehicles, and flash-bang
grenades on a crowd of people"

Obvious answer: on a battlefield, when the crowd of people is an opposing
army.

~~~
speeder
How is not obvious to US citizens that the "enemy" that Manning was charged of
aiding was themselves?

As a Brazillian, to me US looks like there is some sort of weird government
vs. citizen war... And citizens are clueless about it, except a few fringe
groups.

~~~
hga
It's much wider than "a few fringe groups", the sorts of media sources you'd
see that take a step back and try to look at the "big picture" are _de facto_
organs of the state and aren't going to portray those of us getting ever more
skeptical about the state in a favorable light, let alone accurately estimate
our numbers (for fear they're getting really large).

It is a cold civil war, mostly getting steadily hotter (there are reverses,
after the Waco and Ruby Ridge massacres the FBI took so much heat they largely
reversed their direction).

------
gasull
An interesting and related HN thread:

“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book”

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843)

------
kleiba
Just a small comment from a European to our friends in the states: _you guys
are nuts!_ No, seriously, I loved living in the states a couple of years ago
and still have many good friends there. But sometimes it's just surreal to
watch you from this side of the planet...

~~~
djrogers
Worth noting that the first country I ever saw a public display of military-
style force by the police (APCs rolling around in public, and cops carrying
SMGs and assault rifles) was Spain, in 1992. On a recent trip through Germany
I saw another APC emblazoned with police insignia rolling around the airport.

By way of comparison, US cops generally walk around only with sidearms -
rifles and shotguns are left in the trunk or car and aren't pulled out in most
encounters. Similarly, APCs / armored cars are not used for patrol by most
departments, but called out for specific tasks.

The idea that this is a strictly American thing is ridiculous...

------
ferdo
> “systems governed by bad policies and motivated by incentives will produce
> bad outcomes."

This can be applied to the entire US government, not just the police.

~~~
roc
This can be applied to any system, not just the US government.

------
cad1
To me the most blatant depiction of how rapidly this change has occurred, is
to watch action movies from the 80s even the 90s. In many, the police wear
suites and only carry a revolver to apprehend the perps. Granted it is
fiction, but it is a reflection of the current state of law enforcement.

------
stcredzero
It used to be that police were members of a community, serving a function as a
part of that community. Now, they are often more like soldiers of an
occupation force. Their weapons are often getting deadlier, they are wearing
body armor, and often armored vehicles and helicopters are involved.

What we need is less show of force and more community involvement. Just like
in Iraq & Afghanistan, we need more "hearts and minds" won to bring the cost
of enforcing peace and the rule of law down to reasonable levels.

~~~
nachteilig
It's interesting that you're noting this, given the large number of officers
who are ex-military. Seems quite possible to me that this is part of the
reason for militarization of police forces in the first place.

------
DanielBMarkham
Saw an interesting re-run of the U.S. news magazine show "60 Minutes" on my
DVR yesterday. It was about how some police agencies are starting to us
_counter-insurgency_ techniques in an effort to control gangs in the cities.
Many of those advocating are former soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan eager
to apply lessons learned.

Good COIN is as much a PR game as anything, and to the degree that the police
make friends and help out the local citizenry by going out of their way to be
friendly, that's a great thing. But at the end of the segment, it showed a
bust on a couple of small time drug dealers. A bread truck pulls up, and out
pops a team of guys armed for a firefight: tactical vests, boots, helmets,
night-vision, assault rifles. Looked like part of a badly-orchestrated marine
amphibious landing.

I love the idea of community policing. Get the cops outta the cars and walking
around. But after 9-11 we're turning police departments nationwide into clubs
for retired and wannabe assault troops. Policing is dangerous specifically
because you're supposed to be one of the community. The second you switch into
an "us versus them" attitude, or start thinking "I'll do anything necessary to
make sure I make it home safely tonight" then you're violating the public
trust. Cops are the guys walking up to traffic stops carrying nothing but a
holstered pistol and facing god knows what. They're not just another armed
gang out to control public opinion by showing off their cool toys and weapons.

There's a difference between good COIN and good policing. I think we've
forgotten that. Same goes for the difference between good close quarters
combat and good COIN.

I also have a simple question: if SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics,
then what's so special about it when you're using it tens of thousands of
times a year? It's just _SOP_ Weapons and Tactics. That's whacked.

I wonder where the hell the politicians are in all of this and what happened
to our country's mores. It used to be that police who took their job so
seriously they wanted to act like paratroopers were ridiculed by the
community, many of whom were just as trained as the cops were in the organized
use of lethal force. Now we've created a system where only a very few folks
get combat training in the military and then automatically filter into jobs
where such training can be "transferred" Meanwhile the community, including
the judges and politicians, are too afraid of being the guy who caused the
next terrorist attack and too ignorant of what techniques are actually
necessary to perform the role of supervisor.

The 60 Minutes reporter was very impressed by all of this anti-gang activity.
You can tell a lot by the kinds of fluff pieces the media runs, and it's a bad
spot we've gotten into.

~~~
jbooth
I'm much more bothered by the wanna-be assault troops than the retired assault
troops. Both on a scared-for-my-personal-safety level and on a go-join-the-
military-you-wannabe-tryhard level.

~~~
omegaham
This.

Retired infantrymen have already been in combat. Furthermore, they've already
received a lot of training on rules of engagement and counterinsurgency. Many
of them have an aversion to combat situations because they've experienced them
and know that they suck. Wannabe troops, on the other hand, have Hollywood and
tough-guy fantasy as their preparation. I'll take the first, thanks.

~~~
kbenson
> Retired infantrymen have already been in combat

Maybe that depends on the time period. The 80's and early 90's cliche/trope
was former military who never got to see action being gun crazy.

I imagine your view of "action" in the military sense depends very highly on
whether you've seen any, and of what time. Fighting an entrenched insurgency
where you have to wonder every moment whether you are going to be ambushed,
whether every building you enter harbors an enemy combatant, that's probably
enough to wean most off any illusions as to the glory.

Edit: to be clear, I'm using "you" in the general sense here. I'm not trying
to imply any sort of military background of anyone.

------
clarkmoody
The symptom is the military gear and tactics. The disease is too much
government spending.

~~~
w-m
That must be it. Proof: the violent and unnecessary military police shootings
in Norway, Sweden and Denmark that are all over the news every day.

------
logical42
Pp

------
bluedino
It's an arms race between the cops and robbers. 30 years ago the cops carried
.38 special revolvers and maybe a shotgun. After incidents like the North
Hollywood Shootout, where criminals had body armor and semi-automatic rifles,
cops had to step it up. You can't stop a bank robber with body armor using a
.38 special.

Eventually, the cops will have to step it up again when criminals get access
to armored vehicles, better body armor, and bigger guns.

In 10 years the LAPD will probably have an F-22 to shoot down the helicopter a
gang of bank robbers starts using.

