Is militarized police always undesirable?

[Matrosov]

As most of you, I am watching in horror as police officers looking more like combat troops are descending on Ferguson to face off with the African-American population there, whose only crime is Protesting While Black.

Many have voiced their concerns about law enforcement, which is supposed to serve and protect, showing up in African-American residential areas with assault rifles, body armor, and armored personnel carriers. More like, threaten and intimidate.

But I wonder whether out criticism of this militarized police should be universal? Is it always bad when the police is equipped as though it's preparing to assault Fallujah?

I'm thinking of situations like the Branch Davidians in 1993 or the Cliven Bundy ranch earlier this year, where police need to protect themselves and the general population from domestic terrorists. As President Obama has two years left in this term and there is a good chance the next President will be another progressive, I see confrontations with militias, sovereign citizens, and other right-wing anarchists and terrorists only becoming more common in the future.

Perhaps there are situations where combat ready police is a blessing, depending on law enforcement's 'target'

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Yes, Police are for people, the military is for the enemy, Militarized police

treat all people like the enemy .

[Live and Learn]

3. +1 nt

[99th_Monkey]

14. +10 n/t

[arcane1]

2. That's why we have national guards, the ATF, the FBI, the DEA, the BLM, DHS, SWAT teams, etc.

I believe Waco was handled by the ATF, and BLM handled the Bundy idiots.

We have an abundance of heavily armed law-enforcement agencies already. Too many, if you ask me.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. I agree, and so does the Constitution .

[Iggo]

4. Yes.

[bravenak]

5. Yep.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Yes it is always wrong.

WTF - if we are Fallujah then the police aren't needed, the army is needed. But we aren't fucking Fallujah, are we? So why are they out acting as if we are?

[spanone]

8. yes.

[Electric Monk]

9. There was another thread today about The Bobbies you might enjoy reading

here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025400018

[NutmegYankee]

10. Yes.

If there is a group that is willing to or actively fighting the government, then the governor can call out the national guard to put down the insurrection.

[kentuck]

11. The states have their National Guard units...

...if a military response is needed. Local police should not have these weapons.

[Demit]

12. "depending on law enforcement's 'target' "? That could very well be you.

And me. Who gets to decide what law enforcement's target is? Give law enforcement all that military hardware and we'll find out, to our regret.

[99th_Monkey]

13. Abso-fucking-lutely! ~nt

[gordianot]

15. When Godzilla, Zombies, Armies of foreign terrorist attack they will say I told you so.

That was really sarcasm.

We pay massive taxes for Military protection, Police should not be included. Police should be able to match firearms available to the public.

Unregulated private Militia's should be countered by the real Militia.

[MineralMan]

16. Well, the Cliven Bundy incident might have ended very differently

had law enforcement been equipped for a confrontation with heavily armed domestic terrorists. It was no so equipped, and law enforcement had to back down, since they were facing a group that was far better armed than they were.

However, a Federal force should have met this group, not the local sheriff and Highway Patrol, along with BLM law enforcement armed only with sidearms. Local police should not be equipped to handle a military-style confrontation. That was a Federal law enforcement situation, not local.

[gordianot]

18. When you declare yourself a militia call in the real government sanctioned militia & become regulated

If nothing else it would cut down on the number of people declaring they are a militia.

[TheKentuckian]

17. Yes, there are other tools besides hammers of which there are an abundance. The civilian population

doesn't need a hammer, but the peace to be kept.

If a rare situation arises beyond the means of peace officers then we have agencies and forces that exist to deal with such threats and I'll add these groups also need to get better because they tend to screw the pooch as well, neither of your examples exactly inspire confidence.

This kind of tact is exactly how people can be triangulated into supporting what they know is dangerously bad policy - FEAR.
When the right is in power they hold ranks by fear of blacks and Hispanics running wild looting their hard earned property and having revenge for past indignities. When Democrats are in control the fear is of the right wing militia types and guns.

Both parlay into the terror threat down stuff from those angles, it is fucking disgusting frame work to maintain and promote the status quo. Always the same things keep happening but justified by different rhetoric.

[hifiguy]

19. Yes. Indubitably.

[gratuitous]

20. I can imagine scenarios

I can imagine scenarios where a militarized police force might be desirable. Unfortunately, as we've seen with torture (which I absolutely abhor and cannot find a suitable scenario), the option to bring out the big guns soon slides into the obligation to use the big guns. A routine raid or arrest becomes anything but routine when someone in a position of authority on the detail starts imagining the "what could happens": Well, we don't think they're armed, but what if they are? We think there's just a couple of people in the house we're raiding, but what if there's another half dozen we don't know about? I don't want to send my men into a situation where they aren't guaranteed to have superior numbers and firepower. Better get out the armored personnel carrier and the big guns. Just in case. Don't want any widows crying in my office.

[malokvale77]

21. ALWAYS!

It will never make for a good outcome.

We have other branches of law enforcement for all those situations.

[Owl]

22. Yes.

[onyourleft]

23. Yes. n/t

[etherealtruth]

24. Yes

[NightWatcher]

25. Have a SWAT team, just don't call them out for everything

Keep your AR in the trunk with your assault gear.

Don't start at SWAT Defcon 1. It leaves you no wiggle room

[HooptieWagon]

26. Yes. And Branch Davidians and al-Bundy Militia....

...weren't confronted by police, but by BATF. Now, based on their results, you might have a point about BATF needing better weapons and training. But there is no need for local police to have military weapons... in fact, it appears to be quite a hazard to the public welfare.

[Boreal]

32. The Branch Davidians

The 10th Mountain Division was brought in against and Apache attack helicopters were used against those people. When the fire started, those who tried to get out were shot.

This brainwashing about "domestic terrorists" is very disturbing to me. I'm alarmed to see anyone on DU use that kind of language. Sounds like fucking Freepers.

Remember this: One man's victim of oppression is another man's domestic terrorist and it all depends on who is power before any of us are the next "domestic terrorist".

[bluestateguy]

27. If you need the military call the military, otherwise police need to be police

We can't just oppose militarized police when the citizens being picked on are people that we sympathize with, but then support militarized police when the people are those we dislike (anti-abortion wingnuts, tebaggers, etc.).

[hardcover]

28. Yes. not just undesirable, it's insane

[oldandhappy]

29. Community police and military are different. If you need the military, call the national guard.

I never want to see local police or sheriff people in that full military get up.

[AgingAmerican]

30. Those situations were Federal

And as such they have to sometimes deal with very dangerous organizations or groups. Municipal cops...not the same thing.

[stage left]

31. Yes!

Always!

[Matrosov]

33. Thank you for your responses

It's been interesting reading through the replies, and it has helped me look at the matter in a different way.