i'm under the belief they are war time measures. they're treating us all like enemy combatants. we are guilty until proven innocent, unless you are Casey Anthony, then apparently you need "real" evidence unlike one of us who if caught off guard will be given the death penalty on the spot.

It's a show of force to scare us into submission that is clearly backfireing on them.
Ummm, 2nd line, I guess.

Originally posted by yourmaker
i'm under the belief they are war time measures. they're treating us all like enemy combatants. we are guilty until proven innocent, unless you are Casey Anthony, then apparently you need "real" evidence unlike one of us who if caught off guard will be given the death penalty on the spot.

Enemy combatants. Good analogy.

I've been wondering if there's some larger ideology at work, or whether all this martial-law-type enforcement was just an effect of DHS money and military-type training being spread around. But this puts some perspective on it....

These are some pretty heavy-handed operations, from the looks of it.

I wouldn't say the problem is a "police state" so much as it is the more gung-ho varieties of officers being selected for leadership and authority positions these days. It seems to be more of a 'group think' than anything - these people getting selected to lead because they are willing to get the job done and hunt the 'bad guy'... even if he is just late on his student loan payments. I'm sure there are multiple factors - TV dramas glorifying mini-Rambos, perceived threats including terrorism, etc.

There are parts of this relatively small town that I would use such no-knock and 'tactical entry procedures' - bunch of meth-heads and ethnic gangs that need to be dealt with - shootings and stabbings are on the rise. Go be Rambo in the parts of town that need Chuck Norris and other iconic characterizations to straighten them out. While it's true that officers have been shot for pulling someone over to let them know their tail-light is out (and other similarly crazy stuff) - that doesn't justify the use of breaching charges on someone who hung up on the county collector.

And it would suck to be an officer -ordered- to serve such warrants, honestly. You are in a lose-lose situation, almost always. The police have become synonymous with arrests and subject to "uniform syndrome" - where the uniform is feared regardless of the man/woman in that uniform. As I mentioned - officers receive more than their fair share of harassment from people with irrational fears or violent outbursts. You never know how someone is going to react. Then, you're being told to enter a room in such a way as to create a state of shock.... so as to seize the moment of confusion to establish control.

It works.

Until people start shooting you while you're getting out of your patrol car, take your deputy's head off while you're cruising down the street, etc. It only encourages hostilities against officers to take such militant action... which is why it should really only be done when there is credible reason or foreknowledge indicating an officer's presence would be reacted to with violence, to begin with (in the case of serving warrants for 'hard' drug dealers and the like).

Sure - a heavy hand works wonders in crime-riddled areas. But people should be able to trust police officers and others in uniform, and see that as an indication of service and dedication rather than an ominous presence. Being a conspiracy forum - a disproportionate amount of people will be more of the opinion that police officers represent an "ominous" force - and not much is going to change that in the minds inclined toward paranoia (myself included). However, actions that serve to divide the police officer from the praise of common citizens should be heavily weighed against the goals.

Originally posted by yourmaker
i'm under the belief they are war time measures. they're treating us all like enemy combatants.

Get this, to do what they are doing with SWAT teams here - to do that in a war zone actually requires authorization from a 2 star general and evidence that only an assault will be effective.

Waco Call

The trend of increasing militancy in civil government isn't new.

Once a upon a time, most ATF agents were guys who wore business suits and stopped by the local gun shops now and then to check their records. If they encountered a problem that needed the use of force, they would normally hand it off to an appropriate law enforcement agency for action. During the '80s they became more and more focused on paramilitary enforcement operations, becoming more aggressive in tactics and expanding their purview.

Eventually, in moves that appear to have been motivated more by politics (i.e., justifying increased funding from Congress by garnering publicity) than legitimate law enforcement concerns, they ultimately worked up to the botched Waco raid that left 86 people dead and a nation horrified by what it was witnessing.

Although that got a lot of attention and galvanized a great deal of opposition to heavy-handedness in law enforcement, many other agencies quietly stepped up their militarization initiatives, all wrangling for tax dollars to expand what were effectively political fiefdoms. Though I cannot know the thinking of the officials behind these moves, I have to imagine that there has been a long running sentiment that the more dramatic and aggressive an agency is, the bigger the budget it can command.

Under the pretext of the War on Drugs and various perceived threats to public safety, real or imagined, more and more warrants that had previously been served peacefully by local sheriffs and police officers became "no-knock" warrants, initially confined by court oversight to special cases, and continually expanded to ever more implausible situations. Always under the guise of protecting the safety of officers and civilians alike. Federal agencies that had previously worked with local law enforcement became more "proactive" and independent, pushing their way into various jurisdictions with often disastrous results.

More recently, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security introduced an approach to terrorism defense that effectively categorizes everyone in the world, including every man, woman and child in the U.S., as a terrorist until proven otherwise. What was previously viewable as a dispersed trend across various agencies became codified under federal law with caution thrown to the winds. Under the new regime, almost any measure, no matter how questionable or excessive, could be justified in the name of "fighting terror".

As things currently stand, the prevailing sentiment on the part of many law enforcement agencies, particularly at the federal level, toward the public has taken on alarming and threatening undertones. As pointed out in the OP, even agencies that are not commonly associated with law enforcement, such as the Department of Education, are now outfitted with paramilitary units that are looking for something to do -- or someone to shoot.

As sinister as the process may seem, and as dangerous to a free society as it is proving to be, I nonetheless think the main reason we're seeing this trend is human nature, and in more cases than not a sincere desire to do good that gets lost along the way. It is somewhat instinctive for bureaucrats to seek more power, and being in charge of civil servants bearing firearms gives them more power. I don't doubt there are other forces at work, but at the end of the day, it's best not to underestimate the cumulative effect of blind ambition and good intentions gone bad.

What is particularly disturbing about all this is the apparent lack of perspective it exposes. People in positions of responsibility are, by not maintaining sensible control of deadly force, acting irresponsibly, and in many cases irrationally. In the absence of good judgment and reason, anything is possible.

Indeed, at the rate we're going, it's just a matter of time before we see this:

Fig. 1: Agents of the Jefferson Elementary School Crossing Guard
Detachment prepare to escort students with extreme prejudice.

Absurd? Absolutely.

Impossible? That remains to be seen.

Then on the other hand you have bullies like officer Pike of the infamous pepper spray incident.

With which most cops are like him these days.

It's not the people who should fear government, it's the government who should fear the people.

And that's why the police are getting increasingly belligerent towards law abiding people.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
It's not the people who should fear government, it's the government who should fear the people.

And that's why the police are getting increasingly belligerent towards law abiding people.

All I have to say is if they keep these tactics up, they WILL start to fear the people once the SHTF and the public perception of cops goes downhill more than it already is.

BTW...I know I'm going to get flamed here but I HOPE more officers get blown away from these stupid no knocks. I myself would not shed one tear nor feel one bit of sympathy for them.