Police increasingly resemble military teams

[katty]

cont'd: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4803570.stm

Death raises concern at police tactics
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington


Some say police units increasingly resemble military teams

The recent killing of an unarmed Virginia doctor has raised concerns about what some say is an explosion in the use of military-style police Swat teams in the United States.

Armed with assault rifles, stun grenades - even armoured personnel carriers - units once used only in highly volatile situations are increasingly being deployed on more routine police missions.

Dr Salvatore Culosi Jr had come out of his townhouse to meet an undercover policeman when he was shot through the chest by a Special Weapons and Tactics force.

It was about 2135 on a chilly January evening. The 37-year-old optometrist was unarmed, he had no history of violence and displayed no threatening behaviour.

But he had been under investigation for illegal gambling and in line with a local police policy on "organised crime" raids, the heavily armed team was there to serve a search warrant.

[JohnnyRingo]

1. Indeed, my vision of the near future includes being pulled over for a

minor traffic offence and being questioned by a state trooper with a sub machine gun.
I also see the day when they shut down free travel between the states.
They'll say that it's to prevent crime from moving unabated from coast to coast.

All they have to do is close off secondary roads at the borders and set up checkpoints on the interstates. "Please have national ID card ready"

[400Years]

4. most cops hate freedom

[RazzleDazzle]

69. Prevent crime -- or prevent the spread of disease?

Or whatever comes first and worse best. Or both.

[maxsolomon]

2. V for Vendetta is set in the wrong country

we'll be a fascist police state long before the brits.

[acmejack]

8. The Uk is working hard on it as well.

They are making impressive strides inidentity card technology.

[norml]

3. Ever harsher punishments for the riff raff, while placing those at the top

above the law is the agenda of the evil movement that calls itself conservative.

[katty]

34. they are the 'crusaders', their mission is what is has always been

keeping the power they have, acquiring more power & money and above all, maintaining control of the plebs-by any means necessary. Nothing new except except the re-structuring & pressure to maintain control is reflecting an international corsortium. Call it the NWO, the PTB, whatever, it all boils down to the desperate need of those that actually run the world (and they know who they are)to maintain power at the expense of humanity & the greater good (there are more of us than them, this fact is actually is frightening to 'them'). The more alive, expressive and demanding that honest action be taken for the good of the people (anyplace on the globe)-the more pressure will be placed on the plebs to 'stay in line' 'don't act up'-increased fear mongering (like we haven't had enough?)this atmosphere will not let up anytime soon.
Governments want to go international on every level of exchange, thus they must keep their citizens 'in line' to maintain order as the shift occurs...every nation has an agenda.

[quinnox]

5. Sometimes they need the firepower

Some gangs and criminals are more heavily armed than police in some places.

[babylonsister]

6. This is the first time I've heard of this, and again from the BBC.

Is our media M.I.A. - again?

[katty]

10. our media is DOA

[Marie26]

68. There was a Washington Post story

Fairfax Police Say Shooting Was Accident
Officer Kills Optometrist Suspected of Gambling

"Fairfax County's police chief said yesterday that one of his officers accidentally shot and killed an optometrist outside the unarmed man's townhouse Tuesday night as an undercover detective was about to arrest him on suspicion of gambling on sports.

Police had been secretly making bets with Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., 37, since October as part of a gambling investigation, according to court records. They planned to search his home in the Fair Oaks area, just off Lee Highway, shortly after 9:30 p.m.

Culosi came out of his townhouse on Cavalier Landing Court about 9:35 p.m. and was standing next to the detective's sport-utility vehicle, police said, when the detective gave a signal to tactical officers assembled nearby to move in and arrest Culosi. "As they approached him . . . one officer's weapon, a handgun, was unintentionally discharged," said Fairfax Police Chief David M. Rohrer...

After several years without any shootings, officers shot and wounded several people last year, including one of their own officers in an accidental shooting. A robbery suspect was shot this month on Route 1. In the nearly 39 years that Robert F. Horan Jr. has been the chief prosecutor in Fairfax, no officer has been charged with improperly shooting someone."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502245_pf.html

The last paragraph is a little disturbing. Why is there a surge in these incidents? According to another WP article, Fairfax police now use SWAT teams to serve nearly all search warrants.

"SWAT Tactics at Issue After Fairfax Shooting" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012602136.html

[rpgamerd00d]

7. God, this is such a non-issue.

I WANT cops to be more organized and more highly trained!
If your issue is with the guy getting shot, then make that the issue (and its a valid issue).
If your issue is with how SWAT is deployed, then make that the issue (and its a valid issue).

But taking issue that cops are highly trained and organized? DUH! Thats a GOOD THING.

[reichstag911]

11. The issue...

...is NOT that cops are organized and highly trained. The issue is that they are generally mediocre-type folks, with alarmingly poor judgment and an unfortunate tendency to arrest/coerce confessions from/shoot innocent people. When things go bad, really bad, in this country, the cops are going to be the front line of defense for the oligarchs, and they will think they're doing the right thing. Either that, or they'll just be happy that they're able to collect a paycheck after the economy collapses. Various police actions -- Seattle's WTO protests, whatever it was in Florida a couple years back, enforcement of "free speech zones," recently revealed preemptive arrests in NYC -- have shown that the police are not going to recognize any citizen's Constitutional protections when their masters send 'em out in force.

[rpgamerd00d]

12. Again, the problem you describe has nothing whatsoever to do with...

... their level of training.

The thread is critical of their level of training. Thats sorta silly.

[reichstag911]

20. No, the word "training"...

...does not appear in the OP. I will happily, however, criticize that training when it includes the deployment of paramilitary-type tactics and weaponry in routine situations. Why are they getting such hardcore paramilitary ordnance and training? See my original post for the answer to that. They say it's because the drug dealers and other criminals have them outgunned, but I believe (at a higher strategic level within the law enforcement infrastructure) it's more in preparation for widespread civil unrest.

[Mythsaje]

25. That's my fear too...

I think the drug war, in many ways, was in preparation for what they intend in the future. And considering how horribly mishandled the whole thing was--drugs are a bigger problem now than they were when the "war" started, I think it's all been a convenient fiction. Conscious or unconscious, I'm not sure, but over time we've seen the folly of it and yet no one with any power or influence is tackling the issue in a clear, concise manner.

[the other one]

13. Better trained at peace-keeping, maybe...

but I don't agree that local and state police need to be proficient in military style tactics. Like everything else government-related, it will eventually get used, and probably in the wrong ways.

[rpgamerd00d]

15. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense.

The cops should use tactics.
The cops should use tactics that help them win a physical confrontation.
The cops should use better tactics than criminals.

The cops should receive training to teach them these tactics.

People in this thread are conflating training with improper use of police/force.

[Mythsaje]

17. And maybe you're missing the whole point...

Don't you think these kind of tactics used against an internet gambler who ends up dead is a reason to stop and say--what the hell were they thinking?

We don't need the police turning into a military force set to prey on American citizens.

[rpgamerd00d]

18. Im not missing the point, and you agree with me, you just dont realize it

I said the training isnt the issue, the use of the swat is.
And you seem to agree.

[Mythsaje]

21. I don't think anyone's arguing that better training is bad...

At least, not from what I'm picking up from the threat. It goes to the philosophy behind the training, I think. Many folks find the militarization of the police to be a bit frightening, and I'm firmly in that camp.

[rpgamerd00d]

27. What do you mean by "militarization" ?

Do you mean training?
Do you mean equipment (M16s, grenade launchers, APCs) ?
Do you mean attitude?

I have no issue with them learning standard 2 by 2 cover formation.
I have no issue with them owning deadly gear (grenades, APCs, tanks, etc).

I have an issue when they shoot an unarmed doctor.

See my point?

[Mythsaje]

28. By militarization

I mean fostering an "us against them" mentality where the police aren't here to protect and serve, but to, in effect, act like an occupying army.

[rpgamerd00d]

30. When you say "police", what do you mean?

All police?
or specifically SWAT?

Because regular police still drive cars (not APCs), still have hand guns (not M16s), don't have grenades, etc.

SWAT does.
And I'm ok with that.
So long as they don't shoot unarmed doctors.

[Mythsaje]

32. Oh, c'mon...

I like splitting hairs as much as the next guy, but you can't pretend you don't know what I mean when I say some people are very wary of the police becoming more insular and adopting a more 'us against them' mentality, fostered by military style training and tactics. In a country that wasn't sliding toward despotism it would be one thing, here in America, in the early part of the 21st Century, it's worrisome.

[rpgamerd00d]

36. I know what you are saying, I just disagree.

I see a difference between SWAT (which not all towns even have, by the way), and regular police.
I know lots of cops. They are just normal guys and gals, not brainwashed military gestapo.
You need to chill a bit.

[Mythsaje]

40. Some are...

I've spent some time chatting with them.

Some are not.

Question is--if an executive order of martial law is laid down, how many of those "normal guys and gals" will choose to mow down dissenters rather than buck the system?

[rpgamerd00d]

41. 0%. None will shoot people, gimme a break.

That just :tinfoilhat: stuff.

[Mythsaje]

43. And my wife thinks I'M naive...

A doctor is mowed down on his front lawn by the SWAT team and you think if martial law is called 100% of the police will play nice?

You're kidding, right?

Tinfoil hat my ass. Have you no sense of history? Need I reference 1930s Germany, or Kent State?

[rpgamerd00d]

44. I separate individual actions from officially sanctioned actions.

Are there bad cops? Yes.
Might someone get shot unneccesarily by a bad cop? Yes.
Would cops be ordered to shoot to kill protesters? Never.
If cops actually are ordered to shoot to kill protesters, would they actually do it? Never.
If cops actually are ordered to shoot to kill protesters, would the bad cops actually do it? Likely.

[Mythsaje]

46. Technically a "bad cop" is a criminal with a badge...

Many ostensibly "good cops" are still on board with the War On Drugs, which has accomplished NOTHING in terms of protecting public safety. It can reasonably be argued that it's accomplished quite the opposite. There are many good cops, in my opinion, who will follow orders, just as there are soldiers who question their commanders' decisions yet participate in morally ambiguous actions all the time.

[MadHound]

53. Forty one shots, forty one bullets

Through an innocent man's body, a man whose only crime was. . . reaching for his wallet/ID. Forty one shots.

Tell me again how the police won't shoot on Americans, even if ordered to. Because I have many, many more examples to prove you wrong.

[TX-RAT]

61. Was that the guy in the SUV, running from the officers?

[MadHound]

62. Wasn't in an SUV, was on foot, walking while black in NYC

The man's name is Amadou Diallo, you can read more about him here:<http://www.spectacle.org/0300/diallo.html}[br />
And there are many, many more stories like his. If you think that the police won't shoot on innocent civilians when ordered to, you are sadly mistaken. They're already shooting and beating innocent civilians without orders, just think of how much worse it will be once they give cops the green light:scared:

[IsItJustMe]

54. They already have. Many anti-war demonstrators have been beaten and

directly shot by police with tear gas guns. It's a bad problem. You just don't hear about it in the msm

[reichstag911]

24. The use of SWAT is...

...part and parcel of their training in dealing with this type of situation, apparently, so there absolutely IS a problem with department-wide "training."

[Catrina]

39. If the training was proper, a person suspected of gambling wouldn't be

shot dead by a para-military swat team on a street in the US. Something's wrong with this training when the police send out a military style unit to hand a warrant to a possible gambler. If it weren't so tragic, it would be comical ~

Gambling is legal in more developeed countries where there is an expectation that the citizenry, once they reach adulthood, are capable of making relatively grown-up decisions, and if they don't they will suffer the consequences on their own, without the assistance of a military unit.

Personally I don't feel threatened by gamblers, and it is of no comfort whatsoever that the training of the police department now includes mowing possible gamblers down in the street in a military style attack. Actually, I am now way more frightened of the government, especially if I see our local police armed to the teeth as though they were in a war zone.

when the people are afraid of the government it is a dictatorship, when the government fears the people, it is a democracy or words to that effect by Thomas Jefferson who, if he returned to this country today would most likely be horrified, especially at how easily the government can convince its citizens that the very thing he fought for, personaly liberty, ought to be given up without a fight, for some imagined security.

A military-style police force is the wet-dream of dictatorships. Watching the ridiculoulsy over-armed police units at peace demonstrations makes me realize we are so close to the day when those dreams will come true, and citizens will wonder how it happened. 'We were scared of gambling doctors, but not gambling fundies, and all we wanted was to be safe'. Right! this is pretty scary ~

[Marie26]

23. The scary thing

to me is that local & state cops seem to be almost unconsciously mirroring the increased militarization of federal law enforcement. It's almost like a "police state" mentality is setting in. (And I know many police officers, & like them. It's the trend that's worrisome.)

[Mythsaje]

14. No, it is NOT a non-issue...

The question isn't their training and organization, but the mind-set behind what they're doing. It accomplishes nothing beneficial if they take an overly aggressive stance toward average citizens and hide behind their badges when they make dangerous errors. And believe me, they do. The list of mistakes that have cost innocent lives is not a short one.

[rpgamerd00d]

16. Then you agree with me. Their training is a non-issue.

Right?

[Mythsaje]

19. No, not really.

Its the purpose BEHIND the training, and the uses this training is put to, that I question. They're already a rather insular society within our society, and tend to look at every American as a potential threat. Over-use of military tactics against unarmed civilians is not an effective use of resources, nor is it a good thing to be blase about. We don't want people to become accustomed to seeing this sort of stuff and shrugging it off.

[Occulus]

29. If they're being trained to act in an unquestioning manner,

then no, their training is NOT a non-issue.

Look, the fact is that the police are more and more often receiving "toys" that the public in no way has access to. The military being allowed that is one thing- I CERTAINLY do not want people to buy some of that weaponry, even with a license!

On the other hand, I think what we're most concerned about here is the inability of the public to remain on par with the police in that regard. I think it's dangerous to have a police force far more heavily armed than a member of the public can be.

If I could buy a personal APC, heat/night scopes, tasers (that I CAN buy at the moment, and one thread some time ago here was about how many police are against that, IIRC), etc., I would, but these things are not affordable to us. If we have a police force far more heavily armed and possessing a military mindset during confrontations, there is no chance for the public to stand up to Authority by force of arms should it become necessary for the public to do so.

I'm sorry to put it into such stark terms, but one must remember that when our Second was written, virtually everyone was using and/or at least familiar with the same sort of weaponry. Today, there are many who have never even seen a firearm up close.

That gap was never intended. Our Founders had a very personal and clear view of what the public ought to be able to do to reign in Authority, and one of those methods- the final option, actually- is armed revolution, as they themselves demonstrated.

Having police forces armed and trained well above the ordinary citizen, who are then willing to use those arms and weapons on that citizen, represents a severe, even fatal danger to the ability of the public to throw off abusive and/or illegal leadership.

I think THAT is the point we're trying to make here.

[Iowa]

47. That's what's so great about DU...

You wait around long enough and someone inevitably nails it. Great post! :applause:

[the other one]

48. Well put. nt

[Catrina]

45. What training? You keep saying training. Training to gather together a

military unit to hand out warrants to ordinary citizens? Is that what you mean?

This is nothing more than a way to get around the fact that this country has never allowed the military to engage in law-enforcement. I'm sure they are laughing at how clever they were and how easy it would be to get a scared citizenry, as you seem to be, to go along.

The training this country needs is not for the police, it is for politicians. Reducing poverty, providing education to reduce drug addiction, treatment rather than prisons for those who are addicted, some kind of standards of morality (you know, the kind that say that violence is not heroic so you won't have kids thinking that violence is strength), providing parents with a living wage, single mothers with the opportunity to care properly for their children etc. etc. ~ those are far more effective weapons against crime than all the tanks in the world.

Instead all we do is spend money on weapons of violence, on prisons that produce even more hardened criminals, on wars etc. and then wonder why the society is becoming more violent.

You yourself are an example of how fear can cloud one's judgement, and I don't say that disrespectively. Fear is the worst basis on which to make good decisions. We could reduce the need for all this if this country wanted to. It doesn't because we have a wimpy leadership who only feel like big men if they're protected by an army. It's pretty sickening.

[Mythsaje]

51. Though we're more or less on the same page here

I have to inject something of a reality check. Society isn't becoming MORE violent, except in respect to a very limited slice of the mid-twentieth century in which overt violence (in certain sectors of the population, in certain geographical locations in the U.S.) was fairly rare. We're making comparisons to a norm that never really existed except, perhaps, in 1950s and early '60s family sit-coms.

There IS a point where violence is warranted and justifiable, but the issue has become so clouded that few people are willing to recognize when and where it's justifiable. On one side you have the Republican mentality and gang mentality, where anyone who isn't THEM is fair game, and on the other side you have general appeasement, which seems to breed the notion that surrender is the only option. Of course, these are extreme examples... Most people, of course, fall somewhere in the middle. They're not sure when and where, and if, violence is justifiable.

I am not burdened by this moral ambiguity. Against overt aggression calculated violence is a viable response. If someone takes a swing at me, my belief is that a prompt response with a tempered amount of direct force can be justified. It is in my best interest to avoid being swung on in the first place, but I see nothing wrong with responding with the proper amount of force to end the threat.

Violence isn't the issue. A lack of moral and ethical restraint with respect to violent action DOES seem to be the issue.

[Solon]

49. Depends on how there trained too...

apparently "justifiable use of force" is an alien terminology to these SWAT guys. I mean, what is their job, to catch the suspects, or to be the judge, jury, and executioner? That is the training problem right there, not HOW MUCH TRAINING, that doesn't even matter, you can have these guys be so highly trained in firearms that they could shoot a fly off a horses rump at 250 yards, and that isn't comforting to me if they aren't even trained as to WHEN its appropriate to actually pull the fucking trigger.

[IsItJustMe]

50. Yeah, I'm sure Rodny King would agree with you.

[EVDebs]

9. Redefines "To protect and serve" n/t

[sutz12]

35. This is the problem....

Traditionally, the two organizations have different tasks and means to ends.

People have been complaining about using military units as cops, and that is the flip side of the same issue.

Military units are trained to destroy the enemy, and do so as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Police forces are trained to apprehend a suspect. Loss of life is to be avoided, and the suspect is to be brought in for trial, where punishment, if warranted, is administered. It is a separation of powers just as important as the Congress/Executive/Court system.

Once you have the police thinking too much like the military, suspects become the 'enemy' and it doesn't really matter if you arrest him or kill him, as long as you somehow 'get' him. The problem has been getting worse, and unfortunately, many of our heroes dating back to the old film noir movies and Dirty Harry have been glorifying the vigilante answer to crime. In our entertainment, we have been inured to this. Remember "Beer for my Horses?" Significant that it came to popularity with Cowboy Bush & Co, eh?

The problem is, what if the police are wrong, and the suspect just looks like the guy you want? When you arrest someone, there is hope that if he's the wrong guy, at least he'll get released some day. Once you kill him, their is no recourse.

[Iowa]

63. And another great thing about DU...

You wait around even a little longer, and someone nails it from yet another perspective. A great post by sutz12 (also see post number 29 by kgfnally). A tip of the hat and a toast to you both.
:toast:

[EVDebs]

70. Every city has an intelligence liason unit. In Denver CO for example

they are already creating secret lists of who is naughty and who is nice.

They spy
http://www.sfbg.com/37/08/cover_spy.html

[MadHound]

22. Geez, as if this hasn't been obvious for the past twenty five years

Thanks to things like the War on Drugs, and now the War on Terror. In fact the change has been working itself out for the past fifty years. Back in the day, police thought of themselves as public servant, and conduected their relations with the public as such.

Now the general attitude in the vast majority of law enforcement departments is that they are the guards at an open air insane asylum, and again, that is how they conduct themselves with the public.

[Mythsaje]

26. One of the reasons my wife (a former CO)

thinks that their time on the street should be limited...they are constantly subjected to seeing the worst of humanity, and, after a while, it degrades their ability to perceive people AS people.

[MadHound]

31. My cousin is a police officer

Has risen through the ranks, is now a captain on his force. He is utterly appalled by the attitude of a lot of their new recruits. Brand spanking new CJ degrees in hand, sure they've got the book smarts. But have little to no clue on how to deal with people, not just on everyday routine matters, but when the shit is really hitting the fan. More than one has been fired on his recommendation because they had this King of Shit Hill attitude towards the people who paid them their salary. He is an old school cop, and determined long ago that no officer whom he is responsible for is going to cop an attitude, and that they will always have the fact that they are public servants first and foremost in their minds. Thankfully his chief has backed him to the hilt on this, and their police unit gets regular praise, both from the citizens, but also from peers across the nation.

[Mythsaje]

33. There are some great cops out there...

I used to post on the policeone message boards and some of these folks are really neat people.

My wife blames, in part, her cynicism on the three years she spent in the prisons as a CO. Some people seem more likely to take the wrong approach, or to assume things about people because of who and what they are. These people shouldn't be cops in the first place, IMO. But they shouldn't be kept on the streets if they can't keep a sense of perspective.

[katty]

59. agree-the 'open ward' defense/combat mentality

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

37. I've long thought...

...a big part of the problem with police work is that so often the type of individual who wants to become a cop is exactly the type that shouldn't be one. I don't think police departments generally screen and train carefully enough.

[Ufomammut]

38. The militarization of the police has been an ongoing

Effort in further establishing control and a "National Security State."
Problem/reaction/solution: increase tensions through fear, then wheel out the unconstitutional riot-gear goons and brownshirts to "protect" the people.

[RobinA]

42. Not Being a Police Officer

I don't know what the bedrock issue is in operational terms. But here's my issue.

I was talking to a friend who is a cop a couple months ago and he was telling of an incident in which 25 SWAT guys were deployed because a guy was holed up in his own house threatening to shoot himself. No hostages, no demands, just a suicidal guy with an army outside his house. I asked why there needs to be that kind of deployment for a guy with a gun, I was told "safety." I agreed that, yes, there needs to be more cops than civilians with guns for the officers' safety, I'm not advocating a one-on-one gun battle between a cop and the guy. However, 25 SWAT guys? WTF? I was told that it was in case he went to a school or something, as there was a school within a mile. What if he leaves the house and goes to the local school? I asked if this had ever happened or if there was some kind of psychological support for a suicidal man with a gun marching out of his house, hiking a mile to a school, and then going and shooting up a school? This makes absolutely no sense to me. I was told that Columbine was the precedent. I opened my mouth to argue that that is not Columbine AT ALL and that if law enforcement's understanding of events is THAT un-nuanced we are truly in dire straits, but I decided I was wasting my breath.

I think that this whole security state we are living in is a collective delusion whereby no one can say it's bull for fear of not taking security seriously. Plus the fact that there is money to be had by local law enforcement if they can argue that they need X for homeland security. So now they have all this equipment. Hilariously, despite all the techno-ammo-crap they have hanging off of them, here in PA, the local cops can't talk to the state cops can't talk to the fire guys can't talk to the medical guys without a bunch of patches, back and forth radio hook-ups and work arounds. DUHHHHHH. Unfrickin'believeable.

[Marie26]

65. And why is that?

One of the top recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was that law enforcement improve their communications equipment. And that's the one thing that hasn't really been improved. Instead, Topeka, KN police have tons of new cool weapons & equipment that they have no idea how to use. DHS has been giving out a lot of grants for local police to improve their "anti-terrorism/security" units - but it seems like a lot of that money might be going to the wrong place. It's got to go back to the lobbies. It seems like the gun manufacturer/defense contractors have so much power, the fed. gov. wants to dole out this military equipment. It's more money for the contractor, more $$ for the DHS officials approving these grants, & a police force that's just happy to be receiving some equipment. So they start creating these over-militarized "security" units & end up using them in cases where it isn't appropriate.

For example, Superior, Wisconsin, recently received a Homeland Security grant for an armored vehicle; one of many awarded around the country.

"The 16,000-pound armored truck looms over other vehicles.
• Nine gun ports dot the sides.
• A turret juts out on top of the vehicle, known as a BearCat.
• The black exterior sports half-inch-thick steel armor and bulletproof glass.
• It rolls on self-sealing tires.
• The diesel engine roars.
• Devices inside test for biological, chemical and nuclear threats.
This hulking BearCat is built for safety, not comfort. “It drives like a tank,” said Douglas County Sheriff Tom Dalbec as he took the armored truck for a recent prowl around Superior. The BearCat moved to Douglas County in June, funded by a $178,000 Homeland Security grant."

http://www.superiorwi.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=216040

Is this really necessary?

[TheBaldyMan]

72. An IED that cost a couple of hundred dollars could KO it instantly

it's a sad fact that polices forces are becoming hooked on technology, because there are big money contracts out there less scrupulous salesmen will screw them over for the commission.

Equipment is useless if it isn't integrated into the overall system and if training for new equipment hasn't been budgeted in, then you have a very expensive accident waiting to happen.

I'd say greed and ignorance are to blame.

[Marie26]

73. Pretty much

I can't think of any possible reason why Superior, Wi. (pop. 27,000) needs a tank. The article itself said that it's hardly ever been used, because no one knows what to do w/it. Yet the money was spent. And similar Lenco armored vehicles were sent to cities all over the country.

[Initech]

52. The American gestapo is coming. Great.

Just when I thought the comparisons to Nazi Germany couldnt get any more real...

[Ufomammut]

57. YES, run a search on it, it's part of the revised Patriot Act

[katty]

60. it sure is

[Ufomammut]

58. Section 605 in the revised Patriot Act: new federal gestapo

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/showsubjects.php?tid=/Patriot+Act

Scroll down among the other P.A. horrors, toward the left.

[Initech]

64. "Bush could sieze absolute control of American government".

Holy fucking shit. I'm outta here. :scared:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_doug_tho_060113_bush_could_seize_abs.htm

[Marie26]

71. It's not that bad

The "United States Secret Service Uniformed Division" has always been around - they were formed in 1860. This unit guards the White House building & other governmental officials. http://www.secretservice.gov/ud.shtml. They used to be called the "White House Police," but changed their name to the "Sec. Serv. Unif. Div." in 1977. So the division itself is nothing new.

But this new Patriot Act does give them some new duties. Section 3056A is a new code provision, which replaces the old section that used to govern the USSSUD. (3 USC 202). This section does give the USSUD some new powers & changes whom they protect. First, it gives the USSSUD authority to protect "special events of national significance," as named by the President. Second, it gives the USSSUD authority to carry weapons & make arrests w/o warrants for offenses they witness, or anytime they have reasonable grounds to believe a felony is being committed.

The provision about making arrests sounds scary, but it also is nothing new - most federal agents operate under the same provision. (If you search that phrase, it's the same for the ATF, Post Office investigators, etc.) The difference here is that the Unif. Div. now also has this power.

The biggie here seems to be the "Special Events" designation. Once the President declares something to be an a "special event of national significance", it triggers these special Patriot Act provisions. The Secret Service takes control of security for the event, under the control of the Sec. of DHS. Sec. 602 makes it a federal crime for anyone to enter a "restricted area" during a "special event." It also imposes a one year sentence for anyone who simply enters the area, and a ten year sentence for someone who enters the area w/a weapon or causes an injury. Under Section 603, creating false ID of a sponsor in order to enter a "special event" is also a federal crime. Despite these harsher rules, I couldn't find any real guidelines as to what constitutes a "special event". The Secret Service provision simply says that the Pres. must give Congress a list each year of all the "special events" & what criteria he used to make that designation. (Sec. 3056) That's a lot of discretion.

So, there are some worrisome aspects, but overall this law really isn't changing very much. It's certainly not creating a new Gestapo. The law seems mostly aimed at allowing the Secret Service to protect large national events, such as the Super Bowl. If I'm misunderstanding anything, please let me know.

Old "US Secret Service Uniformed Division" law - 3 USC 202- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000202----000-.html

Patriot Act's New "US Secret Service Uniformed Div." law - 18 USC 3056A - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./temp/~c109Rpm1HY:e193429:

[anarch]

55. meanwhile: President increasingly resembles some kind of monkey

I think there's a connection here.

[Minnesota Libra]

56. Why do I forsee troops in the streets before long?? nt

[Trillo]

66. Sounds like Murder.

Investigation should never equal a death sentence unless convicted in a court and given the death penalty.

The cops who shot the doc, if the story is as represented, need to see some significant jail time.

[mitchum]

67. Army of the rich