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

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

henschman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
24
Location
Oklahoma City
I think cops should legally have the same access to weapons that we mundanes do... and no more. Of course I also believe in eliminating virtually all restrictions on the private possession of weapons, so I am not really for restricting the police from anything as much as I just want them on a level playing field with the militia... bearing the 2A and the whole notion of checks and balances in mind.

Focusing on equipment is really a superficial solution to the problem of "the militarization of police," which is really just shorthand for police aggression and separation from the rest of the civilian population.

What would go much further toward stopping the problem would be the elimination of victimless crime laws... particularly the War on Drugs. Victimless crimes cause the police to desire more power, and the Courts to grant it, because it is obviously harder to ferret out crimes when the dastardly act you're attempting to stop is the mere possession of something... especially when that something is a friggin plant.

I believe no-knock warrants should be done away with entirely. So should suspicionless checkpoints. I think mandatory dash cams -- even body cams -- are a great idea... and that the public should have complete and unfettered access to these records.

A big reason for the growing divide between police and the rest of the civil population is the special powers that they have. I believe the police should not have any power or authority any other civilian does not have... to include legal liability for their actions (this would of course do away with qualified immunity). Police should have the same authority to use force, point guns, stop/detain/arrest people, etc. as anyone else. The only difference is that they get paid to do those things. Likewise, people should have the same freedom to defend themselves against aggression from police as they do anyone else. Because of the close relationship between police and prosecutors, I believe there should be a special division of state attorneys that only investigate police misconduct, with the the power to bring charges against any sworn officer in the state.

Good topic, OP. This is a issue where I see a lot of ignorant focus on superficial matters by people who are typically on "my side" politically.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
87,562
Reaction score
69,709
Location
Ponca City Ok
, people should have the same freedom to defend themselves against aggression from cops as they do anyone else.

That's a dangerous statement.

All cops as part of their training are aggressive. Its part of how they make LEGAL arrests work for the most part.

For the record, when I see a person kneel and put their hands up and back to the LEO, they have submitted to arrest. Done deal. Walk up and cuff.
What I don't think is right is that one or two LEO will fly in and do a take down with knees on the head and neck when it wasn't necessary.
 

henschman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
24
Location
Oklahoma City
That's a dangerous statement.

All cops as part of their training are aggressive. Its part of how they make LEGAL arrests work for the most part.

For the record, when I see a person kneel and put their hands up and back to the LEO, they have submitted to arrest. Done deal. Walk up and cuff.
What I don't think is right is that one or two LEO will fly in and do a take down with knees on the head and neck when it wasn't necessary.

And it's a dangerous job. It shouldn't be taken by people who aren't comfortable with the risks.

All cops are aggressive? I have to agree, and it is by far the biggest reason for the problem this thread is about. Aggression, by definition, is using violence against someone who hasn't started its use. Unfortunately, the law justifies this in a great many ways. That's why I said the elimination of victimless crimes would be the most effective way to address the problem. Cops should be defenders of people's rights, not aggressors against people who need "protection" from themselves.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
87,562
Reaction score
69,709
Location
Ponca City Ok
And it's a dangerous job. It shouldn't be taken by people who aren't comfortable with the risks.

All cops are aggressive? I have to agree, and it is by far the biggest reason for the problem this thread is about. Aggression, by definition, is using violence against someone who hasn't started its use. Unfortunately, the law justifies this in a great many ways. That's why I said the elimination of victimless crimes would be the most effective way to address the problem. Cops should be defenders of people's rights, not aggressors against people who need "protection" from themselves.

Define victimless crime?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom