Rise of the Warrior Cop: How America's Police Forces Became Militarized 835
FuzzNugget writes "An awakening piece in the Wall Street Journal paints a grim picture of how America's police departments went from community officers walking the beat to full-on, militarized SWAT operations breaking down the doors of non-violent offenders. From the article: 'In the 1970s, there were just a few hundred [raids] a year; by the early 1980s, there were some 3,000 a year. In 2005, there were approximately 50,000 raids.' It goes on to detail examples of aggressive, SWAT-style raids on non-violent offenders and how many have ended in unnecessary deaths. Last year, after a Utah man's home was raided for having 16 small marijuana plants, nearly 300 bullets in total were fired (most of them by the police) in the ensuing gunfight, the homeowner believing he was a victim of a home invasion by criminals. The U.S. military veteran later hanged himself in his jail cell while the prosecution sought the death sentence for the murder of one officer he believed to be an criminal assailant. In 2006, a man in Virginia was shot and killed after an undercover detective overheard the man discussing bets on college football games with buddies in a bar. The 38-year-old optometrist had no criminal record and no history of violence. The reports range from incredulous to outrageous; from the raid on the Gibson guitar factory for violation of conservational law, to the infiltration of a bar where underage youth were believed to be drinking, to the Tibetan monks who were apprehended by police in full SWAT gear for overstaying their visas on a peace mission. Then there's the one about the woman who was subject to a raid for failing to pay her student loan bills. It's a small wonder why few respect police anymore. SWAT-style raids aren't just for defense against similarly-armed criminals anymore; it's now a standard ops intimidation tactic. How much bloodshed will it take for America to realize such a disproportionate response is unwarranted and disastrous?"
And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Full disk encryption. & Call my attorney.
Do not talk to police without an attorney.
Pfft. If you have done nothing wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
...you have nothing to fear, right?
At least that is what the early proponents for increased surveillance and by extension armament of the police forces kept saying.
It is the lawmakers and the police that keeps escalating trivial issues to full out combat.
They did it during the occupy demonstrations as well. Kept battering peaceful demonstrations wearing riot gear, then go nuclear when someone had the audacity to tell them to stop.
It is a disgrace.
Bullies like being bullies (Score:5, Insightful)
Violent crime rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Violent crime in the US is occurring at the lowest rate in my lifetime and still declining rapidly. There are some, I'm sure, who would say that SWAT teams are a contributing factor to that. I'm skeptical of that claim. I would argue instead that declining violent crime rates make SWAT teams irrelevant. The wasted money alone is reason enough to quit using them; the number of extra-judicial "accidental" killings is a stronger reason.
I've lived in the Boston metro area for over 15 years, and the only incident I've seen or heard about that justified use of a SWAT team was the apprehension of the marathon bombing suspects. Frankly, something that we need that rarely, we would be better off without. Let the governor call out the National Guard when the threat to public safety is enough to justify military force.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Three words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Full disk encryption. & Call my attorney.
Do not talk to police without an attorney.
Last year, after a Utah man's home was raided for having 16 small marijuana plants, nearly 300 bullets in total were fired (most of them by the police) in the ensuing gunfight, the homeowner believing he was a victim of a home invasion by criminals.
I don't think either of those would have saved this man.
Re: Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
You got shot for investigating what the founding fathers called "gardening". That's what's truly f***end up about your story.
This is where Police States are formed. (Score:5, Insightful)
The police are increasingly regarded with fear and distrust, which insulates them from the community they work in, which makes their behaviour in turn more aggressive and antagonistic. This widens the gap to the point where the police are not a part of a community, but something that oppresses it.
History has proven that a lot of people are happy to mistreat or kill or torture others, assuming they see the other as an "enemy".
The Warrior Cop seems to me to be not just a result of militarisation, but politicalisation. Cops are told again and again they are fighting wars against drugs, or terrorism, or crime, and unsurprisingly they turn into a war making institution. Not only that, but an institution that sees everyone as an enemy.
This seems to me a result of consistently electing lawmakers who are too fucking stupid for words.
If there was any doubt how over the top this is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't think you can have it both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
If gun ownership in a society is as ubiquitous as in the United States then the police necessarily have to be at least as well armed and trained in military tactics.
which, in turn, stems from the stance of the government. The Second Amendment isn't about deer hunting or self-defense, per se, it's about being able to overthrow your government when you need to, as the guys who wrote it had just done.
This massive military government was never envisioned - the Army was only to be able to be stood up for two years at a time.
It's a failing of the highest order, and makes the People less safe. The answer to "does the Second Amendment allow people to own a nuclear weapon" is clearly, "if that's a problem then the government should get rid of its nuclear weapons."
A constant escalation by both sides cannot end well. Actually, just that we have 'two sides to the conflict' is damning evidence enough.
Being a cop can be boring (Score:5, Insightful)
So then comes along SWAT. With the occasional columbine the cops are able to convince the local politicians that they don't want to be caught with their pants down. Internally they wont meet much resistance because who doesn't want to play soldier and act all tough. You get to do cool training (pit maneuvers, kicking down doors, and lots of shooting). Basically action hero stuff; who didn't become a cop without at least a small hero fantasy in the back of their brain.
But then the last factor is that most police departments are by nature separate from the politicians. This is sort of a requirement otherwise politicians could too easily interfere with investigations "I can vouch for him personally, he would never do anything like that, I think you should drop it, Now." Plus the police need to be able to distribute their resources as they see fit. Again the politicians would distribute the policing according to political needs which would generally be very different than distributing the resources for crime prevention.
But the real question becomes one of authoritarianism vs libertarianism. This is the true divide in North America, not left wing and right wing. There are those who believe that we should be exposed to no risk and aim to impose some kind of perfect Disney society. They believe that with enough rules that this society can be achieve. The war on terror and the war on drugs are perfect examples of this. Yet the simple measure of the impossibility of this would be maximum security prisons these places are full of drugs and violence. If near 100% removal of liberty and relentless monitoring can not work in these facilities, what hope is there outside in "free" society? Bizarrely the various police agencies are slowly turning "free" society into those very failed prisons.
This sort of behavior often has many unintended consequences. This us against them mentality might first pervade the police but it then pervades the public. You end up with a public who stop cooperating with the police as a rule thinking that any cooperation will be used against them. This significantly reduces the usefulness of the police while reinforcing their mentality of us against them.
But then this feedback loop seems to get worse. The authoritarianism begins to spread to the legal system where you get angry prosecutors and hanging judges trying to prove that the system still works. The politicians are then harangued to make the penalties stiffer and stiffer as toleration of any libertarian policies would be to admit failure.
But luckily fantasy can only hold out so long against reality and as we are seeing a few jurisdictions have effectively eliminated their marijuana penalties. The world did not come to an end. Money is being save and lives aren't being ruined. But the authoritarian types are still desperate to hit people with sticks. So they are now making DUI laws where you will test positive a week or more after smoking up. Also these involve taking a blood sample. A fairly invasive and nasty privilege to give to the police.
So my suggestion is to fight fire with fire. New fundamental laws need to be put into place that will severely punish any members of the legal system who violate people's rights. There should be a people's jury that can be called that can permanently remove from office any official who is accused of abusing rights (judges, police, prosecutors). Freedom of information laws should be massively strengthened to the point where when a FOI request is issued that the officials will place it at the top of their todo list with little recourse to say no. Information is truely the lever of power and by giving information back to the people the people will regain the power that is rightfully theirs.
No consequences for the officers (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a question for the police chiefs around the country. When an officer conducting a raid "accidentally" shoots an unarmed person, why are there no consequences for that incident? It would seem to me, someone who will accidentally pull the trigger during a raid is exactly the kind of person who should not be trusted to participate in raids.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
3.Well we can start with the 4th amendment if you like ;
Right to feel secure in your persons. Right against unreasonable searches and seizes.
But there is also the right to privacy.,
Map of botched raids (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised the (otherwise excellent) article neglected to include the Cato Institute's map of botched paramilitary police raids [cato.org].
This really is a serious problem. I teach home defense along with my concealed weapon permit classes, and the question always comes up "If someone is breaking into my house, how do I know if it's the police?" The answer, of course, is that you can't know, but if you guess wrong it could cost you your life. Good luck.
In my opinion, raids are simply too risky to be justified unless there's an imminent threat to an innocent's life. The reason for using aggressive entry tactics in the vast majority of cases is to prevent the destruction of evidence. That's simply not a good enough reason the kind of high-risk situation the aggressive tactics produce.
I think there are very rare circumstances in which SWAT really is appropriate, and we should scale SWAT capabilities appropriately. Perhaps each US state should have a single group of state troopers who form such an elite force, and are equipped with transportation that allows them to respond quickly anywhere in the state. A big, populous state like California may need two or three such units. But when every podunk PD has its own SWAT team, their mere existence is going to guaranteed that they get used for all sorts of other things. They're too expensive, and too cool (to the police), to just leave sitting around all the time.
Re: Summary of TFS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer to why police have become more militaristic is because criminals have become more murderous against cops.
More murderous as compared to when? Crime rates have been falling in this country for years.
They are tired of being shot at ... there is safety in numbers ... I'm a medically retired cop ... who was shot in the line of duty while investigating a massive marijuana grow ... I was alone.
It sounds like you're talking about the opposite extreme. No reasonable person is going to complain about sending several officers when there is a potentially dangerous situation. Personally I'd complain if they didn't. But there is an enormous difference between that and sending fully militarized SWAT teams in under situations that clearly don't warrant it.
I wonder if the SWAT teams don't make things more dangerous for the police, especially in the long run. If you know you may come up against a military assault team, it's tempting to arm yourself likewise. Unless perhaps you're wanted for murder or something, the dumbest thing you can do is shoot a cop. I know many criminals aren't the brightest of people, but if military assault teams weren't the norm even they might come to realize that. Hey Charlie, you may do some time for growing pot or jacking cars, but it's a lot less time than for shooting a cop.
Arms races go both ways, and I suspect that this militarization, in addition to making police lose the respect of the public, ultimately may make things more dangerous for the police.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
I served in Iraq. I know what it feels like to be under threat of death daily. Instead of a crazy crack head every so often, I dealt with roadside bombs, mortars, and snipers. Daily.
I disagree with you in the utmost.
If you are too scared to do your job without violating peoples rights, then you should not be doing the job. In fact the whiny attitude that you have about wanting drones and more officers because then you would be "whole" Just proves that you were never fit for the job to start with.
Lets say that all police officers are 100% honest and honorable (HAH!) We then trust them with equipment that allows them to violate rights at will. (Drones, license plate camera with massive storage, etc) This is not a problem because of how honest they all are. What happens when those honest cops get replaced with dirty cops. We have given the dirty cops the ability to violate our own rights.
This is compounded because cops never rat each other out. It is one big circle jerk that falls back to the old canard that the dirty cops just wanted to make sure they went home every night.
If the police actually monitored themselves, and kept their own house clean I would not worry about them having powerful new technology. As long as "clean" cops protect dirty ones, I think poorly of all police officers, and do not trust them.
I will again reiterate. If you are too scared to do the job, then find a new profession. I do not want you to be scared after all.
Ohh and the pro weed argument. You will hear it. The ban on weed it an over reach of the state. What right does the state have to tell me what I can and cannot put into my own body. In fact I feel that federal regulations on it are an inherently unconstitutional abuse of the commerce clause.
Re:As a devils advocate (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do SWAT teams wear black? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do SWAT teams wear black? It may seem like a small point, but when designing uniforms symbolism and psychological effect are certainly considered. When I see a black uniform the first thing I think of is Gestapo. I'm sure that I'm not the only one. What other uniforms are black?
Don't say it's for camouflage, as any solid color is bad camo. Even at night straight black is far from the best - that was known as least as far back as WWII. The standard, and immediately recognizable, color for (local) police uniforms in this country has always been dark blue. State police and sheriffs deputies may wear grey or khaki. Recognizability is useful - that's why certain brands of products have "trademark" colors. It says much that they want black associated with SWAT.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that individual is also known to be stockpiling arms, as happens in the US from time to time, then I can see how an armed raid is justifiable.
Or they could, you know, just grab him when he leaves the house to go to work, or to the grocery store. Yeah, it'll cost a little overtime since he'll have to be watched for a couple of days, but that'll be a lot cheaper than the department invests in equipping and training the SWAT team -- and one hell of a lot safer.
It doesn't offer the police officers the same rush, though, which is why they'll argue they really need to gear up and break down his door.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem(in addition to the effects on the public being 'protected and served') is that this sort of disproportionate force isn't even a positive development for officer safety.
Doing no-knock full SWAT raids probably improves safety against people who are willing to shoot police; but those people are relatively rare: shooting at cops is risky, and you have to be guilty of a lot before you won't notice the additional jail time. Against people who wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to shoot police, though, it's performing a very convincing violent home invasion(a situation where a great many more people would consider shooting to be a reasonable thing to do) for no good reason. Overwhelming force might usually mean that the resident loses; but you only have to get unlucky once.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:1, Insightful)
Given the number of people shot by US police every year far exceeds the number hacked to death in Britain (even when you normalise for size of population), i'd say that the US police shootings are far scarier.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
You sounds like a bit of a fool to be honest. Your line of reasoning is something along the lines of:
Someone from a country where something bad is happened is criticizing my country so I must attack him and defend my own country!
That is idiotic and people like you are the reason SWAT teams run rampant. People like you are looking for any excuse to declare that your country as better than anywhere else and further use that as an excuse to feel that everything is OK.
It isn't. Actually try to observe things as they are and compare them to your own moral standards.
A place and time for anarchy? (Score:5, Insightful)
...until the degree of brutality reaches to levels that everyone can see.
Which takes us back to the final sentence of TFS:
How much bloodshed will it take for America to realize such a disproportionate response is unwarranted and disastrous?"
Trouble is, what everybody can see and what can be done about it are two different things. If you have a State that is content to say FUCK YOU, then, well, you're fucked. It really doesn't make any difference whether or not you protest, the behaviour will remain the same. There are only two things you can do about such treatment, and one of those (most likely) will make you a criminal as far as the law is concerned. The other, of course, is to do nothing. Good luck with that.
There is no point in placing asinine hope in democratic processes: we have been shown (time and again) that where these exist (!), they will be subverted by those who do not have your best interests at heart.
Re:Bullies like being bullies (Score:5, Insightful)
There's also the insanity of "sovereign immunity" or "prosecutorial immunity" here, where basically the police and district attorneys can do nothing wrong, if it's in the execution of their duties. So, the police can break into a house (with no warrant), "accidentally" kill all the pets, attack the residents, "accidentally" shoot the owner, and when they find out it's the wrong address, basically get away without even apologizing or making restitution.
Observer bias much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cops have been breaking down doors, shooting people and abusing their power ever since the dawn of civilization. I think there is something about the Sheriff of Nottingham written about that. "Fritz the Cat" came out in 1972 and cops were called "pigs" then.
Just because your adult life is more recent, or your selective memory prefers to discard negative events (as human memory does), does not mean things have changed much. They did not call it "SWAT" or "raid" then, but they did the same thing.
That's not to say any of that is a "good" thing. But the false nostalgia for the "good old days when a friendly cop stood on the corner smiling to children and waving a friendly nightstick" is just that, and it's dangerous if used as a pretext to "let's go back to those wonderful times". Those times sucked. Move forward, fix things today.
Re:A place and time for anarchy? (Score:5, Insightful)
The media have a role to play in this, as well. By not informing people that these kinds of abuses are happening, it prevents us from knowing just how bad the situation is becoming. If these things stay at the local level of reporting, or aren't even reported because the local media don't have the budget or the concern, nothing will improve. This is why Balko's reporting efforts are vital, and more people need to be involved in reporting these abuses.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why the "militarization of the police" is a problem. You're not a soldier, this isn't war, and you aren't an occupying force dealing with insurgents. If you think you are, and you treat all non-police as potential threats, you need to turn in your badge and gun and get psychological help.
Re:Three words... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's good advice, but it's nowhere near a solution to the problem. Some of these people didn't live long enough to meet with an attorney.
Then there's the case of Daniel Chong [wikipedia.org].
Re:Don't think you can have it both ways. (Score:4, Insightful)
If gun ownership in a society is as ubiquitous as in the United States then the police necessarily have to be at least as well armed and trained in military tactics.
Gun ownership is protected by law. And that is all the more reason that the police should behave in a calm and civil manner; they are creating the problem they fear by behaving like violent criminals themselves. "I have to to home at night" will never be an excuse for breaking into someone else's home and creating situations where people get murdered (and the murderers get off being put behind a desk, rather than behind bars).
If they get a warrant describing the specific place or persons to be searched, knock, and calmly identify themselves and their purpose before drawing arms (as they are expected to), they have nothing to fear from normal citizens.
As to the cases where there is genuine risk from armed criminals involved (which remains the case regardless of the legality of arms), well, quite frankly they were aware of that risk when they signed up. If they are not willing exercise more due diligence first or put their lives on the line to protect and serve, then they should find another line of work.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:3, Insightful)
And that justifies 50000 SWAT raids per year?
I'd rather live in danger of crazy terrorists than live in danger of the police. At least if I shoot the terrorist I'd have a better chance. Whereas if I shoot a cop in self defence either they'll riddle me with bullets and say I was the bad guy, or throw the book at me and pile up tons of charges.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:2, Insightful)
Part of that has to do with the audience watching cops. They edit out most of the boring stuff, the times when the officers aren't actively busting heads or doing things that are "interesting." Being a police officer is a bit like being a security officer, there's like 95% mind blowing boredom and maybe a few percentage of the time, you're actively engaged in something interesting. But, you still have to be paying attention for the bulk of the time, just in case something relevant happens. Or keeping up whatever contacts you can make.
Contrast that with Cops and similar shows, where it's pretty much the opposite.
Re:Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
the local swat decided it would be a good idea to use an ambulance to go in and conduct a raid
For which the genius who approved that idea should have been fired without pension, if not summarily executed. Even in a war zone they don't send in soldiers under cover of a red cross.
Re: Wake up (Score:5, Insightful)
Most SWAT is used at 3am when the suspect ASLEEP.
It's about TERROR and the raid being punishment.
Re:Being a cop can be boring (Score:2, Insightful)
But the real question becomes one of authoritarianism vs libertarianism. This is the true divide in North America, not left wing and right wing. There are those who believe that we should be exposed to no risk and aim to impose some kind of perfect Disney society.
The authoritarianism vs libertarianism divide is quite real, but so is the left-wing vs right-wing divide. The left-wing and right-wing have significantly different visions of what "some kind of perfect Disney society" looks like, and push for significantly different sets of rules to achieve them.
In the left-wing utopia, you'd find: (1) legal and social equality between races, genders, sexual orientations, religions etc. (2) little-to-no violence. (3) limits on how rich or poor someone can get (This may all come at a high cost in efficiency and productivity). (4) little-to-no environmental disasters. (5) pot is legal. (6) consensual sex is always legal.
In the right-wing utopia, you'd find: (1) everyone is a white born-again Christian. (2) violence is acceptable in defense of property. (3) no limits whatsoever on enterprise and business (this has costs like environmental messes and government corruption). (4) resources are used as quickly as possible to produce as much as possible. (5) if you can't take care of yourself, tough luck. (6) The only kind of sex that is OK is within a marriage.
That's a pretty big divide, and it is reflected in the policy proposals of the 2 largest US political parties. There are authoritarian and libertarian principles embedded in each of those visions, but you can't legitimately argue that they're basically the same thing.
Re:Summaries that advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
The argument over who's at fault entirely misses the point. With a little planning the officers could have searched the house without mounting a paramilitary style assault with a SWAT team. They could, for example, have entered the man's house while he was at work. That would have been a safe, predictable, and effective way of obtaining the evidence they needed. Instead the police chose a dangerous and unpredictable alternative.
There's no reason to believe the cops didn't announce themselves, but the instant they *do*, the clock is ticking. If the suspect actually *is* armed and hostile every second waiting increases the danger to the officers on the raid. That puts them in an automatic escalation mode. There's no way for officers put in this situation to distinguish between the case where the occupants aren't responding because they'are asleep, as in this case, or because they are preparing to repel the assault with force.
Ultimately the responsibility for the officer's death lies with the commander who ordered an assault because it was his automatic way of dealing with drug searches. A little thought could have reduced the danger to which his officers were exposed, not to mention anyone who happened to be in the house. A SWAT team is a powerful tool, and like any such tool fools can get enamored of the power and use it where a little finesse would be simpler, safer and more effective.
Nobody deserved to die in this situation, but somebody deserved to lose his job.
Re: Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
They Are Not "Warrior" Cops (Score:3, Insightful)
they are state backed thugs. a "Warrior" has a code of ethics and honor. these assclowns have no such thing.
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Being a cop can be boring (Score:5, Insightful)
The key problem with all this is that it can be cultural. In the US there is a culture of glorifying extreme success. While this can be argued to push people to achieve, only a tiny tiny minority will every be extremely successful. Yet since so many dream of being wildly successful they won't support measures that might hurt the successful, including those that would vastly improve their own lot. You have the working poor not supporting minimum wage all the while watching the owner of the business they work for buy another BMW for his kid going to a $50,000 per year collage.
The question is coming as to how all this is going to play out. It is easy to look at the NSA stuff and extrapolate out to the US being Nazi by 2019 but if you look at McCarthyism (which was pretty bad) it just ended overnight. One day there was a red under every bed and then poof the losers running the nuthouse were shut down. Communists were still a threat just not a threat worth destroying yourself over. The same may happen with the NSA.
As for left and right being different seeing that things like Guantanamo and PRISIM were created by Bush and not shut down by Obama I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two.
As for dealing with the militarization of the police it can quickly be dealt with. You make things like no-knock warrants almost impossible to get. You restrict the types of weapons that the police can possess. You cut off terrorism funding and tell them that things like that will be handled by the FBI. But most importantly you remove the investigation of the police from any body associated with law enforcement and you give them the ability to terminate police without any recourse of their unions. I saw this up close; when the police screw up they not only look bad but they make their political masters look bad. So solid investigations that solidly confirm that policeman X was bad and is now fired is confirmation that politico X isn't doing his job. Thus it is in their best interests that the investigations are "Internal" and "Confidential" (i.e. not embarrassing). This is why so few autopsies are performed after unusual deaths in hospitals; they are only going to expose screwups.
Re:The US has been at war for over 60 (Score:0, Insightful)
Most of the US is quite cozy, with violent crime being largely confined to areas where toxic people prey on each other.
^^^This, a thousand times over. I don't remember where I saw it, but not long ago I saw an analysis of shootings in the US and in European countries. The bottom line was that if you exclude the violent urban neighborhoods, murder rates were about equal in all countries.
Dare I say it? Most of the violent urban neighborhoods are black or Hispanic in the US and immigrant communities in European countries. Culture matters. In the US, welfare state handouts have corrupted the characters of the residents of certain neighborhoods, destroying the family unit and creating a host of social problems. In Europe, immigrants from violent or anarchic countries are invited in and then told that they should not bother to assimilate because multiculturalism declares that all cultures are equally valuable.
Re:"Shock and awe" force implies scaredy-cat polic (Score:5, Insightful)
So helping a country declare independence is imperialistic?
If you setup a puppet state then yes.
Besides the US has invaded plenty of countries.
Re:Summaries that advocate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wake up (Score:3, Insightful)
Google something yourself why don't you?
160 cops died, out of 800,000 or so in 2010? Death rate of 1 in 5000
774 construction workers died in 2010, out of a workforce of over 11 million. Death rate of 1 in 14000. Being a cop is hardly safer than being a construction worker. In fact you're about 3x more likely to die on the job.
Your biased claim is no better than GPs. Worse, actually, since you declared him full of shit and berated him for not using google.
America the Beautiful (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to militarize, you must accept the code of honor that goes with it.
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
people stopped caring about other people some time ago.
No they didn't. There was never a magical golden age where everyone was generous, charitable, and concerned about the welfare of strangers. Our institutions have changed. Human nature has not.
Re:IRS Too? (Score:5, Insightful)
On TV, you watch the U.S. 'Cops' and you see violence all over from the cops.... ... you watch the Canadian show 'To Serve & Protect' and the cops are all,
"You've been driving drunk, eh!... I'll give you a warning this time. Did you want us to drive you home or can we call you a Taxi."
A much different look at police tactics (or TV show tactics?)
Cops was created to desensitize the American Public to police brutality. That is the only reason the show was created and still going 20+ years, even though the show has always sucked.
Re:fuck old people (Score:5, Insightful)
So you made up these points of view by older people in the world between your ears. Make sure your geriatric 40+ straw men get plenty of straw fiber. Meanwhile, in the real world, those of us over 40 are very concerned about our decline into a fascist police state.
Re:The Blue Wall (Score:4, Insightful)
Makes me sick of a justice system where a 11'yr child could be charged with a crime for something like this.... Does not matter if he was autistic or not, but autistic kids might even flip out a bit more if someone grabs them (not sure if that's the same for everyone?)....
Any police should be able to handle a 11'yr old kid verbally, and worst case taking a hold of his arms and then getting a kick or two from a kid is not really that bad.. If someone work as a police-officer they should at least be able to handle a few bruises when handling kids..
Kids are kids.. They flip out from time to time and it's normal..... The strange thing seems to be that the police that are sent to schools don't get any proper training on how to handle kids..... And working in a place where you have autistic (and other things too?) should require quite a bit more of education...
Re:And it's only going to get worse (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember a time when people where not so mistrusting of everyone..
What has changed is not "trust", but your naivete. Did you know that back before I turned 13, people didn't have sex?
Just looking back 15-20 years i remember things like..
You remember wrong. In the last 20 years, crime rates have fallen dramatically. Volunteerism is up. In almost every way our society has become both more trusting and more trustworthy. You are looking at the past with a rose tinted rear view mirror.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)