A tragic story. In fact, a criminal one.
I wonder what Mr. Wrana’s final thoughts were of the country he fought for 70 years ago. Too much law enforcement in America has lost all sense of proportion: If you need six armed officers to police a nonagenarian in an old folks’ home, seven armed officers to police a 20-year-old female you suspect might have a beer in her shopping bag, thirteen armed officers to terminate Giggles the baby doe, you’re doing it wrong — and you’re the real threat to public order.
These cops should be charged with manslaughter. It was a huge mistake to give the police departments all of that Pentagon surplus.
The “Second Amendment Line” is very simple:
An average, background-checked citizen should be able to legally posses whatever the police are allowed to use. The police would suddenly be a lot less interested in carrying fully automatic weapons.
Yes, this means that serious problems get -multiple- police to show up. Well, that happens anyway, so that’s no loss. The only distinction is that when there’s something truly beyond the local police like a gang headquarters or a cartel – you request help. This does mean passing through the extra hurdles and scrutiny of making it inter-agency.
Ai,
Can’t quite agree with this. I understand what you are trying to accomplish but the fact is that the Police need to have enough weaponry/firepower to compete with, and subdue, the real bad guys (not a nonagenarian).
In the 20’s and 30’s the police carried the venerable .38 and were outgunned/outranged by the mob and the gangsters, who were using .45 ACP’s, BAR’s and tommy guns. According to the font of all knowledge (/sarc) Wiki, Clyde Barrow had armor piercing rounds for his BAR. So the police had to up-gun.
So I can see the need for the police to at least equal, if not exceed, the bad guy’s range and punch.
Still, I do see lots of examples of multiple cops in a situation where one should suffice. It suggests that the police are taking the easy way out with massive firepower/presence instead of learning the far more difficult technique of dealing with people. Not to suggest that the police should be blase with a gangbanger.
But with an old guy who won’t take is meds? One cop should have been enough and he shouldn’t need weaponry.
So I can see the need for the police to at least equal, if not exceed, the bad guy’s range and punch.
You can manage that without having special “police-only” rules. Police with nothing more than civilian legal semi-automatic rifles outgun the vast majority of their opposition already. The 20’s also happen to be before machine guns ownership was curtailed by the NFA of 1934.
I don’t have a problem with the heavy body armor and the armor piercing ammunition after you’ve already shown the opposition is particularly well armed. But not as regular carry for routine stuff.
If it’s a serious enough problem, you announce the breakdown of civil authority in the area and send in the national guard.
” Police need to have enough weaponry/firepower to compete with, and subdue, the real bad guys”
And I won’t?
“And I won’t?”
Didn’t say that. You should too.
But as long as we re hiring peacekeepers they need to out gun the competition.
This is one of those things that can be cured by political action. Police chiefs are typically appointed by mayors. It’s time to start electing mayors who will begin cleaning up the police departments. They can start by scaling back the military surplus equipment and SWAT teams. For those teams that remain, tighten the requirements and accountability.
As for the cops themselves, the best cops on any force are no better than the worst cop they allow to remain in the force. Got cops on the take? Fire them and prosecute. Got cops who get off on excessive violence, the “bullies with a badge”? Get rid of them, or you’re no better yourself. If they don’t start demanding that the bad cops are eliminated, then start reducing their funding. That’s something controlled by city councils in most cities.
Good luck with that idea, Larry, as long as police unions exist.
No police unions where I live. And, oddly enough, no excessive police response incidents either. Hmmmmmmmm…
Sadly this is all been driven by massive Homeland Security budgets that are arming every community willing to accept them, with weapons they don’t need, to stop terrorists that aren’t here. We are in far more danger now from our own police forces that we were ever threatened by the terrorists.
Get rid of police unions, too, along with all other public employee unions.
I could care less that police have fancy guns and armored cars. I care about how they use them.
That old man that got tased and shot with bean bag rounds had nothing to do with police buying military surplus and had everything to do with what the police think are appropriate actions.
That SWAT team that killed a fawn had nothing to do with the militarization of police forces and everything to do with the poor decision making process of the police.
In both of these examples it was the training and judgement of the police that caused bad outcomes not surplus military equipment.
Stopping the police from buying armored vehicles or fancy guns will not stop cops from behaving badly.
You can’t -stop- ‘behaving badly’, even issuing nothing but badges – you’ll have the occasional idiot-bully-rapist using just the raw authority on someone.
But the military gear does affect the thinking. Because you end up training on how to use it for the “worst case scenario”. And then combine that with the unexpected. “Well, we don’t -know- what they have for weaponry … so prepare for the worst!”
-> SWAT-team responses for crap that needed just a pair of normal uniformed beat-cops or detectives to show up and ask a few questions.
“Hello, yes, I’m with the XYZ police, I hear there’s a fawn here? We have a procedure to help with that….”
I read wodun’s comment and thought he was right, but I have to agree with Al, give people power in any form, whether political, weapons or whatever, and they’ll find a justification for using it to its full extent.
“…..and they’ll find a justification for using it to its full extent.”
Or beyond.
Tasers and bean bag rounds are not military gear. I agree that given a tool, the police will use it.
I feel that the “militarization” of the police argument is a bit overblown and often the criticism is about how cops look or what their weapons or vehicles look like. This whole line of attack is similar to what gun control advocates say about scary looking guns.
I don’t think the weapons or vehicles make the cops act the way they do. It is the training and tactics employed.
“Because you end up training on how to use it for the “worst case scenario””
They should be trained for a worst case scenario but they shouldn’t think every call will end up that way. Part of the problem is a police force that values their own safety above the rights and safety of the public and this comes from chiefs of police and the police academies not their kit.
Just curious how this crowd feels about a mandatory, “tamper proof”, camera-and-microphone for police-issue weapons. (And, eventually, I’d expect most new weapons to do it.)
Audio recording on a permanent 30-second buffer, safety -off- means start recording full video + audio – and save the last thirty seconds of audio too.
Pretty sure I could fit the electronics into the space of a single bullet.
Thirty seconds of audio from before Zimmerman’s safety came off should be mighty enlightening.
On the cop’s weapons? Meh.
On citizen’s guns? Hell no. People can already put a camera on if they choose to.
Cameras on all cops? Yes.
Please don’t bring this idea up to any of those jerkholes in Olympia. We already have enough gun laws in WA. 🙂