Any cases of them actually deploying and firing the .50 cal?

 

Or is it more of a Prop for Photo Ops?

Any cases of them actually deploying and firing the .50 cal?

 

Or is it more of a Prop for Photo Ops?

 

I doubt it's been used. I can't imagine a scenario a police department would ever have need for such a thing. Even still, I don't think it is benign just because they haven't used it (yet) or is meant for the presentation of an image, because the image is that they are soldiers, not police, and that comes with a lot of dangerous implications. The same goes for a lot of this military stuff we criticize - it has limited utility other than to connote that they are soldiers.

What constitutes the "Over Militarization" of the police in general that everyone keeps complaining about?

What is Rand talking about?

What does it look like to you?

What constitutes the "Over Militarization" of the police in general that everyone keeps complaining about?

What is Rand talking about?

What does it look like to you?

 

See Post #30.

See Post #30.

I said in general not a 1 in a 1000 case of some dept getting a surplus APC.

 

Is it the fact that they wear helmets in tactical situations? Wear matching uniforms, carry rifles similar to what you can buy at Walmart? Other than the unneeded APC with a mounted gun, which there probably aren't a handful of departments that have similar equipment, what is it that is upsetting?

From the Richland County Sheriff's Department Website:

 

RCSD Tactical Team

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46445[/ATTACH]

 

I've already said I don't think they should have a .50 cal.

See Post #30.

 

That's one department. One...out of thousands in the US.

I doubt it's been used. I can't imagine a scenario a police department would ever have need for such a thing. Even still, I don't think it is benign just because they haven't used it (yet) or is meant for the presentation of an image, because the image is that they are soldiers, not police, and that comes with a lot of dangerous implications. The same goes for a lot of this military stuff we criticize - it has limited utility other than to connote that they are soldiers.

 

Limited utility? What specifically has limited utility? I feel like I've asked you about specifics before without an answer.

 

There are reasons behind most of the things the police have, and the fact that they use them rarely is evidence that they are not acting as a military with the items. It shows they are using them responsibly for the most part. Just like any other situation with police, there will be abuse. That abuse should be punished, if it's criminal. But to take away items that could help police subdue dangerous people while keeping them safe because it looks mean...is ridiculous.

I've already said I don't think they should have a .50 cal.

 

Wasn't making a comment either way. You also made a point to say that they had one in 2008 and wondered if they still did. I was just verifying that they still do.

Wasn't making a comment either way. You also made a point to say that they had one in 2008 and wondered if they still did. I was just verifying that they still do.

 

That doesn't really verify that they still have it. It verifies they have a picture of it on their website...but I get your point.

Limited utility? What specifically has limited utility? I feel like I've asked you about specifics before without an answer.

 

There are reasons behind most of the things the police have, and the fact that they use them rarely is evidence that they are not acting as a military with the items. It shows they are using them responsibly for the most part. Just like any other situation with police, there will be abuse. That abuse should be punished, if it's criminal. But to take away items that could help police subdue dangerous people while keeping them safe because it looks mean...is ridiculous.

 

What constitutes the "Over Militarization" of the police in general that everyone keeps complaining about?

What is Rand talking about?

What does it look like to you?

 

I don’t think there is a simple, stark definition of it. In my mind it includes not only equipment, but tactics, and even the presentation of an image, which all culminates in what I see as an erosion of rights in our country.

 

I think there are plenty of uses for SWAT-type teams and other hardware, but they have limited utility outside of a very circumscribed set of scenarios. Yet, their usage has increased something like 1500% since the 1980s and we are frequented with stories of their usage leading to innocent deaths, property destruction, and a growing perception among the public that they should fear their police.

 

I don’t think there’s a coincidence between the spread of the type of equipment needed for these tactics and their increased usage. It also appears to be a part of a growing trend across the country for the last several decades. At what point in the trend are our criticisms legitimate?

 

I also object to the image that the police are soldiers because it belies the fundamental role of the police in our society. I’m sure you all find it silly that some of us object to the combat uniforms and military vehicles, and many of you have assured us that they have little use outside of “looking mean,” but that’s precisely the point. Why are they projecting the image that they are soldiers and not civilians?

 

I think a lot of this is on display in Ferguson. Of course the police are needed there. But, the immediate scaling up of their response to that of combat zone exacerbated the situation and led to a lot of troubling reactions, like the arresting, threatening, and gassing of journalists to the heavy-handed responses to the people who were simply protesting, despite there being clear rights for both of those. Of course, in a war there aren’t any rights, and that’s what bothers me.

I think a lot of this is on display in Ferguson. Of course the police are needed there. But, the immediate scaling up of their response to that of combat zone exacerbated the situation and led to a lot of troubling reactions, like the arresting, threatening, and gassing of journalists to the heavy-handed responses to the people who were simply protesting, despite there being clear rights for both of those. Of course, in a war there aren’t any rights, and that’s what bothers me.

Scaling up? They used non-lethal items over and over to disperse the looters and those attacking them.

I don’t think there is a simple, stark definition of it. In my mind it includes not only equipment, but tactics, and even the presentation of an image, which all culminates in what I see as an erosion of rights in our country.

 

I think there are plenty of uses for SWAT-type teams and other hardware, but they have limited utility outside of a very circumscribed set of scenarios. Yet, their usage has increased something like 1500% since the 1980s and we are frequented with stories of their usage leading to innocent deaths, property destruction, and a growing perception among the public that they should fear their police.

 

I don’t think there’s a coincidence between the spread of the type of equipment needed for these tactics and their increased usage. It also appears to be a part of a growing trend across the country for the last several decades. At what point in the trend are our criticisms legitimate?

What type of hardware are you talking about, that's what everyone keeps avoiding...what specifically is being over used? What would you prefer the police never use again, because you feel it is out of their scope?

 

As new equipment comes out it naturally is going to be used more than when no one had it. The use of Semi-auto pistols is up over revolvers used in the 70's. Use of vest is up from 30 years ago when few departments could afford them to protect their officers. Rifles are issued now much more than even 20 years ago, not to use on every arrest to have them when they are needed.

 

I for one wish every officer had a armored vehicle to drive...but I know that would "Scare" a lot of people.

I said in general not a 1 in a 1000 case of some dept getting a surplus APC.

 

Is it the fact that they wear helmets in tactical situations? Wear matching uniforms, carry rifles similar to what you can buy at Walmart? Other than the unneeded APC with a mounted gun, which there probably aren't a handful of departments that have similar equipment, what is it that is upsetting?

 

My post was more in response to the "What does it look like to you" portion of your question... That doesn't look like Police to me, it looks like military. It doesn't necessarily upset me, I just see it as over kill. Sure there are special circumstances that might call for that kind of gear, but I think it is being over used.

I don’t think there is a simple, stark definition of it. In my mind it includes not only equipment, but tactics, and even the presentation of an image, which all culminates in what I see as an erosion of rights in our country.

 

I think there are plenty of uses for SWAT-type teams and other hardware, but they have limited utility outside of a very circumscribed set of scenarios. Yet, their usage has increased something like 1500% since the 1980s and we are frequented with stories of their usage leading to innocent deaths, property destruction, and a growing perception among the public that they should fear their police.

 

I don’t think there’s a coincidence between the spread of the type of equipment needed for these tactics and their increased usage. It also appears to be a part of a growing trend across the country for the last several decades. At what point in the trend are our criticisms legitimate?

 

I also object to the image that the police are soldiers because it belies the fundamental role of the police in our society. I’m sure you all find it silly that some of us object to the combat uniforms and military vehicles, and many of you have assured us that they have little use outside of “looking mean,” but that’s precisely the point. Why are they projecting the image that they are soldiers and not civilians?

 

I think a lot of this is on display in Ferguson. Of course the police are needed there. But, the immediate scaling up of their response to that of combat zone exacerbated the situation and led to a lot of troubling reactions, like the arresting, threatening, and gassing of journalists to the heavy-handed responses to the people who were simply protesting, despite there being clear rights for both of those. Of course, in a war there aren’t any rights, and that’s what bothers me.

 

Do you have experience in police tactics? If you do this next sentence does not apply to you. It's funny to me that people with no experience in police tactics, people that have never had to work a riot or go in the front door of a house, act like they know what tactics police should or should not use. You are entitled to your opinion, but would you go into a doctors office and tell them how to do their job? I mean statistics show us that Doctors kill far more people in the United States every year by mistake than police do...why doesn't anyone tell them how to fix their issues?

 

You are cherry picking numbers that garner a reaction from people. Instead of examining why swat teams have been used more, you automatically assume they're just being over used. Never mind the fact that our world is changing quickly (terrorist attacks, mass shootings, etc) and that many departments that did not have a "SWAT" team felt it necessary to do so. They felt it was necessary because guess what people would say if the police do not respond fast enough or efficient enough to the next shooting? They were unprepared. They were flat footed. They failed. People want police fast, and they want them efficient.

 

The fact that they are used more doesn't mean they are used wrong. Mistakes happen, but I would be willing to bet they are few and far between.

 

They are not projecting that they are soldiers. You might perceive that, but there's a reason they have the words "POLICE" written on everything they use. In some places camo works much better for a SWAT team that might have to search/fight etc someone through a wooded area. Other people have pointed out that it helps them differentiate people. Sometimes it's just cheaper and easier to replace if it's damaged.

 

They did not scale up anything. Many people have reported that there was gunfire every night in Ferguson. How many of those came from police? They were pelted with rocks, bricks, bottles and urine...and they did nothing but use non lethal tear gas, and rubber bullets. Many times several warnings were given to disperse or for people to keep moving. Once, even after a bottle landed right next to police in a video I watched, the police waited and gave orders to disperse. After another bottle...they finally started using tear gas. Tear gas is probably far safer for the police and the protesters/looters/rioters considering the next option is probably to go into the crowd. How many fights are going to happen then? How many people have been seriously injured, as a direct result of the police in Ferguson? How many of those people were innocent bystanders?

 

As for the journalists, they are definitely a major part of the problem in Ferguson. They are an absolute embarrassment and some journalists have said that themselves. Many of them have ignored police instructions to disperse when bottles are being thrown, and some have joined the protesters in groups. How are the police supposed to differentiate between protesters, looters, and media...if they're all in one big group? I'm afraid too many "bloggers" are being considered journalists and I'm afraid too many of them forgot that they're not supposed to make themselves part of the story.