imported post
RussP wrote
I don't follow "a result of the "militarization" of police". Help me out, please
It is pretty much the same problem (as I see it) that led police to stop referring to themselves as "peace officers" and begin referring to themselves as "law enforcement officers". It is also why it bugs me when police refer to non-police as "civilians," although I know that it is often used as just a convenient shorthand.
I know it is partially caused by an increase in the sophistication of criminals and their willingness to use violence, but it seems that many police view themselves as "above" the rest of us. As I see it, police are just like the rest of us, but are given more responsibilities than most by society, and therefore should be given some privileges and consideration the rest of us do not get; however, those should be limited and closely monitored by the rest of the populace.
But some officers seem to think they should be above the law. Consider the outrage by those NJ police who were stopped by an Augusta County deputy when they were running hot all the way back from New Orleans. They thought the law should not apply to them. For more of the same kind of thinking, see
copswritingcops.com.
Perhaps it is old-fashioned of me (funny considering my age), but I like the community policing style of yesteryear, when the neighborhood police officer knew everybody on his beat, and worked to prevent crime through communication, not a show of force. These days, the "beat cop" has all disappeared. As I see it, a major job of the police should be education and outreach, similar to the way open carriers can educate the public at large about firearm ownership.
I think that what I am getting at is that many officers like to think of themselves as "elite" or "tactical." Gadgets are all the rage among the police, and even the smallest deprtments have SWAT teams. See
this image of LAPD SWAT--automatic weapons (understandable), masked, clothed completely in black. They look pretty much the same as
these soldiers in Iraq. This is what I refer to as the "militarization of police." I realize that SWAT teams are needed in some circumstances, but they are overused--ie the Elian Gonzales raid.
The controversy over no-knock raids also highlights how these teams can be overused and lead to loss of life. You give a man an automatic rifle and a hood, and protection if not explicitly in law then in practice (the reluctance of DAs to prosecute a cop when they would prosecute one of us for the same shoot), then you make him much more willing to take a life. The adrenaline of a SWAT callout cannot help his judgement either.
I think the elitist thinking is the mentality of many of the subsection of police who think nobody but police should carry guns. They portray themselves as highly trained weapons experts and threfore the only ones who can be trusted with guns, and the antis buy into and perpetuate this myth. I see this in a lesser form in pfficers who open carry every day on the job, but do not think "civilians" should have the same right.
