Your opinion on the "police state" or "militarization of law enforcement"?

[Glocktogo]

Do you guys base these happenings or attitudes on personal experiences or through current events/media coverage?

A bit of both in my case.

 

[Foghorn]

It's a load hogwash. Cops have been using military surplus, and new military equipment since the beginning of our country.
It's media hype.

Nothing screams poor craftsmanship like wrinkles in your duct tape

 

[SoonerP226]

Just heard this the other day:
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/18/40761...munity-violence-after-local-police-encounters
Interesting that the gal from Washington had this to say:

We changed the training environment itself. We removed a lot of the symbols and the tools of the trade that were on the walls with murals of the Constitution. And we spent a great deal of time talking about the Constitution and what it means to a police officer. I tell my recruits in the first week there at the academy, my entire career, my training on the Constitution, consisted of how to work around it so that I could make an arrest and prove a case. It never occurred to me when I was working the street that I was there to support the Constitution. I viewed myself as being there to enforce the law. Some of the other things that we've done is move away from some of the military protocols. Instead of requiring recruits to snap to attention and be silent when a staff member passes, we require them to engage in conversation because that's a skill they need in the field. Effective police officers are able to engage community members in conversation.

Emphasis added.

 

[Raoul Duke]

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

The second amendment text leads me to believe that citizens have the right to keep & bear substantially the same weapons that a soldier bears. That being the case, it's reasonable to assume that law enforcement has to respond to situations in which substantially the same weapons that a soldier bears are present. Why should law enforcement not have the same equipment and use the same tactics that soldiers use?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The second amendment text leads me to believe that citizens have the right to keep & bear substantially the same weapons that a soldier bears. That being the case, it's reasonable to assume that law enforcement has to respond to situations in which substantially the same weapons that a soldier bears are present. Why should law enforcement not have the same equipment and use the same tactics that soldiers use?

Except that we are not allowed to be or are hindered in our quest to be armed as well as our regular soldiers. If the Second Amendment were honored and abided as it is intended to be, all things arms would be equal. If my local sheriff wanted to use an APC, he could choose one belonging to his county or use his own.

Speaking of which, wouldn't you like to see APC races at the next county fair?

Woody

 

[Dave70968]

The second amendment text leads me to believe that citizens have the right to keep & bear substantially the same weapons that a soldier bears. That being the case, it's reasonable to assume that law enforcement has to respond to situations in which substantially the same weapons that a soldier bears are present. Why should law enforcement not have the same equipment and use the same tactics that soldiers use?

The spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act provides one reason.

 

[JeffT]

The spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act provides one reason.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Posse_Comitatus_Act.aspx - Link to an explanation of the Posse Comitatus Act

One of the relevant parts of the article...

...Congress outlawed the practice of posse comitatus by enacting the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (as 20 Stat. 152) as a rider to the Army Appropriation Act for 1880. The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Congressional debates indicate that the PCA was intended to stop army troops from answering the call of a marshal to perform direct law enforcement duties and aid in execution of the law. Further legislative history indicates that the more immediate objective was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police elections in ex-Confederate states where civil power had been reestablished.

Significantly, President Hayes vetoed the act because it "makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected to the use of the Army." Congress overrode the veto. Accordingly, the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress...

I see this as, even then the president was trying to get more power for the national government.

 

[Dave70968]

e that the PCA was intended to stop army troops from answering the call of a marshal to perform direct law enforcement duties and aid in execution of the law. Further legislative history indicates that the more immediate objective was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police elections in ex-Confederate states where civil power had been reestablished.

Significantly, President Hayes vetoed the act because it "makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected to the use of the Army." Congress overrode the veto. Accordingly, the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress...

I see this as, even then the president was trying to get more power for the national government.

Right. One of the intended effects of the act was that the functions of the constabulary should not be performed by a fighting force such as an army; that is, the police power should not be an overwhelming force to the citizenry.

Also, I have concerns about the care and attention to detail that were put into the writing of the quoted article; I'd be willing to bet large sums of money that the 1880 act made no reference to the Air Force. Call it a hunch.

 

[SoonerP226]

Right. One of the intended effects of the act was that the functions of the constabulary should not be performed by a fighting force such as an army; that is, the police power should not be an overwhelming force to the citizenry.

Interesting that the PCA only applies directly to the Army and Air Force. It doesn't stop the Feds from floating the Big Mo up to Catoosa and shelling Tulsa or landing the Marines...