12 Dallas police officers shot, 5 killed

[CitizenBBN]

BTW Im glad they blew the (expletives deleted) up. Despite the handwringing by liberals and even my libertarian colleagues, he was sniping cops; cops get to snipe back. I only wish they'd used a flamethrower.

I found an argument where they were concerned b/c they saw it as militarization of the police.

i have expressed concerns on that before, but I don't see this as that kind of thing really. If deadly force was justified, and it was in this case as it is whenever there is a dangerous armed person holed up and refusing to surrender, then I see no reason why we'd risk officer's lives versus a robot.

The militarization risk of police has to do with the mindset, and how the police deal with group situations and how threats are assessed. But once we have a clear threat using civilians rules of engagement, saying an armed robot was "militarization" when a M16 rifle (which police SWAT units have had since they were first built) is OK is silly IMO. The problem is when all cops start carrying M16s and using them to deal with everyday law enforcement situations, creating an unhealthy "us versus them" mentality on both sides.

[Doc]

I've got no issue with "militarization" of the police force. Head to Mexico sometime, or many of the European counties. Its common to see the Police patrolling with military weapons. Does it make one uncomfortable? Yes but also makes one feel safer,

[suncat05]

Anywhere in Europe the police AND the military carry automatic weapons. The Philippines too. Every country I have ever been to outside the U.S. Now, have not been to Australia yet, but my wife has two brothers that live there. From what I've been told, most of the LEO'S there still don't carry handguns. I haven't seen it myself, that's second hand information, but if true that would be the exception.

[suncat05]

I've got no issue with "militarization" of the police force. Head to Mexico sometime, or many of the European counties. Its common to see the Police patrolling with military weapons. Does it make one uncomfortable? Yes but also makes one feel safer,

Having it available, and then using it correctly for the given situation when necessary. Any other uses may tend to be excessive and thereby send the wrong message. And it's just bad public relations. We want the citizens on our side, not being wary of the police and afraid of us. That is counterproductive to a peaceful society.

[UKHistory]

I am very weary of the militarization of the police and I am very concerned when our soldiers go door to door in other countries like Kosovo and collect weaspons.

We are moving if not already there to not have a rights of privacy, to exercise the 4th and 5th amendments. That is a concern.

In the use of a robot to kill a sniper, no one could sanely question the Dallas police department's decision. It ended a horrible standoff that had already taken the lives of 5 policeman and wounding 7 others plus the public. It raises long term implications about law enforcement which needs to be about protecting and serving rather than search and destroy.

I don't like seeing police in sci fi body armor or camo BDUs.

I really am concerned that law enforcement gets military weapons and equipment as I think they will more often use them. Human nature-- it is there. Use it.

I am not one who like to use other countries for a comparison to us. Just because the Philippines does something or Israel does something does not make that right for the US.

Benchmark what others do. But if we are leading the charge we don't need to look back and try to emulate others too much.

[suncat05]

History, many of us are wary of those same things. Even many of us in law enforcement. There is a right time and place for the correct application of such tools. And it has to be 100% correct and justifiable.

[bigsky]

I'm with ukhistory. Traffic police thinking Bozeman is Fallujah. The change to more of a military uniform. Sneaking around buying Bearcat Assault vehicles for terrorists in towns of 40,000. (Yes I can see its utility for going up against a crazy guy with a .300 winchester mag) (but that isnt what they said to get one). The foundation buying military gear as part of the ordinary equipment outside of civilian city commission authority.

So when the asst chief shot a guy in a traffic stop I was happy, yes, happy he did it. It was kill or be killed. Thats why we arm our peace officers. And they have to react so instantly, I worry that what is the right instinct when policing a civilian population with whom you are at war is so automatic that it is the response here, where civilians are their neighbors.

I admire the guys for maintaining some normalcy in the face of drunken, hostile, belligerence from a seamy societal underbelly.

But I'm struggling with this post Iraq war change in who we hire and and how they approach civilian authority.

[UKHistory]

History, many of us are wary of those same things. Even many of us in law enforcement. There is a right time and place for the correct application of such tools. And it has to be 100% correct and justifiable.

Suncat,

Good folks can agree to disagree and respect one another. That said, I am pleased we share the same concerns. You and your colleagues in law enforcement across the country puts yourselves in harm's way for us daily. Thank you for what you do.

As Americans and as human beings we need to see the good in one another while always striving to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and follow the rest of the Constitution.

[KeithKSR]

I don't worry about our local town police becoming militarized. Their budget is so lean they can only have one officer on duty at a time.

[Doc]

Having it available, and then using it correctly for the given situation when necessary. Any other uses may tend to be excessive and thereby send the wrong message. And it's just bad public relations. We want the citizens on our side, not being wary of the police and afraid of us. That is counterproductive to a peaceful society.

You go over to Europe and you don't feel wary of the police. We were in Paris just prior to the bombing of Charlie Hebdot. At Xmas, the Champs de Elysee is closed a large festival is hosted there. Prime terrorist target. Squads of 5-10 heavily armed, camo decked officers were patrolling every block. Nobody was wary as they were there to protect and everybody knew it. They simply patrolled the area so there was no public relations issues. In fact they promoted a peaceful society.

[dan_bgblue]

Black Panther Party to rally at the Republican convention and intend to go armed while there

[CitizenBBN]

Militarization isn't about using a robot to kill a clear threat who had already committed mass murder.

It's about a mentality. When we send the army into a place to lock it down they are there as an occupying force to quell resistance and maintain control. The police are here to aid and protect and serve.

The military is "us versus them", the police cannot fall into that thinking. For them it's "we protect them". The fear is that if they are suited up in camo and armor riding around in armor plated vehicles they have totally removed themselves from the community. They have also become a response agency, not an active prevent agency.

The old days of foot patrols and beats and cops knowing the people they protected, that is what is lost. Guliani in New York brought some of that back and it was also tremendously effective in reducing crime. I'd like to see that brought back in as many places as possible, where I know the actual officers who watch out for my neighborhood. I imagine that's very expensive, but I'd rather spend on that than most other things we throw money at in this country.

But that's what "militarization" is about, the mentality of separating the police from the citizenry. They need to be part of us, and it's also beholden on the citizenry to feel the same way.

[KeithKSR]

Militarization isn't about using a robot to kill a clear threat who had already committed mass murder.

It's about a mentality. When we send the army into a place to lock it down they are there as an occupying force to quell resistance and maintain control. The police are here to aid and protect and serve.

The military is "us versus them", the police cannot fall into that thinking. For them it's "we protect them". The fear is that if they are suited up in camo and armor riding around in armor plated vehicles they have totally removed themselves from the community. They have also become a response agency, not an active prevent agency.

The old days of foot patrols and beats and cops knowing the people they protected, that is what is lost. Guliani in New York brought some of that back and it was also tremendously effective in reducing crime. I'd like to see that brought back in as many places as possible, where I know the actual officers who watch out for my neighborhood. I imagine that's very expensive, but I'd rather spend on that than most other things we throw money at in this country.

But that's what "militarization" is about, the mentality of separating the police from the citizenry. They need to be part of us, and it's also beholden on the citizenry to feel the same way.

I like the community based policing that many cities have introduced. Police patrol in the area they are from, so they know the people and people are more trusting of them.