The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
I have come to the realisation in recent months that I DO want to disarm the police. I want them to be armed with nothing more than a .38. No reloads, no shotgun, nothing else but 6 wimpy rounds of .38 and a dependence on the goodwill of the people he is sworn to protect. Yes, I said it. I want them to be obviously dependent on us, the non-police.
The police are increasingly rude and adversarial. Most especially in ares where there is a lot of gun control. I expect to be treated with respect. Until a jury pronounces that they have found me guilty then I AM INNOCENT. I expect to be treated as such. Obviously, if the cop saw me utilise excessive force, or if I have actively threatened him or her then I should be restrained. However, this crap of handcuffing everybody has to stop as well. Yes, I have heard the old mantra that it is for the Officer's safety, what about the citizens safety? Same thing with the whole thing about their need to know whether or not there is a weapon in your car. All for Officer safety, the increasing number of people who are being shot while obeying the contradictory orders of cops on scene shows that we REALLY need to worry more about the safety on non-police.
Removing their tactical options and making them once again reliant on the rest of us will go a long way toward rebuilding the necessary relationship for policing in a free country.
Kevin, I agree with renn.
There was a time when "peace officers" faced review boards for rounds fired not hitting the target, even during a righteous shoot.
The "Overkills" (300 rounds fired, six hits in the back of an innocent man at the wrong house) we're seeing on the rise (See the Cato Institute) in today's "Us vs Them" Law Enforcement are egregious at best.
Community policing (Beat Cops) works. Over-armed SWAT, VICE, NARCO, and Gang "Hit" squads hiding behind masks separate themselves from the community, and can only function effectively with stormtrooper tactics - with predictable and historically proven effects on indvidual liberty...
There's a man from Ruby Ridge, a few Branch Davidians from Waco, some black folks in Philadelphia, a 92-year old woman in GA, a lot of disarmed law-abiding citizens in New Orleans, and a man named Cory Maye who'd have liked LEOs held to the higher standard they pretend to uphold.
The "War on Drugs," "No knock" warrants, civil forfitures, Random DUI stops, Revenue generation ("speed Traps" and "Click it or Ticket"), and just generally bad attitudes discourage civil assistance while promoting unrest and varying levels of resistance.
Take away some of the military tools and tactics, or at least seriously restrict their "general" use, and you'll go a long way towards promoting a civil society that participates in its policing and crime prevention, rather than resenting "enforcement."
RE: masked raids - I'm not too crazy about them myself, but is their purpose more to help shield them from accountability, or a legitimate fear of criminal retaliation?
I've heard that criminal gangs are becoming more sophisticated, even to the extent of placing clean "moles" in law enforcement and other government agencies, which would make any sort of "strikeback" a lot easier...
Just as a general rule, it really ain't a good idea to trust a group of masked men carrying guns.
No matter who they claim to be, or what they claim that they're doing.
Here's a radical notion:
#1 of Peel's Principles is a flat impossibility. No police/patrol force can prevent crime. They can only pick up the bodies and (try to) catch the perpetrator.
"Professional" (see Fran Poretto on what makes a true professional) police forces have become a crutch and an excuse for laziness on the part of civilian populations.
The ridicule implied in the phrase "taking the law into your own hands" is insidious in its evil. The law can ONLY -- must only -- be in the hands of the people, or a free state becomes an impossible dream.
Therefore, let us not disarm the police, let us disband them altogether. Make de jure the de facto situation that the police cannot protect us from predators, save at the margins.
And when our civil masters refuse, let us be clear what that means -- they intend us to live in a police state.
(The above is stated for purposes of argument only and does not represent firmly-held beliefs on the part of the writer.)
Go back and read Is the Government Responsible for Your Protection? Pt. II. I believe it directly addresses your assertions and your recommendations.
We have a police force for a reason, and it's a good one.
I had read your essay before. The ideas expressed in it -- albeit indirected -- informed my rant above. I thank you for the pointer -- I'd never have found it if I were looking for it ::grin::.
However, I don't believe it DOES really address the point. As a matter of fact, I respectfully submit that it sidesteps the issue -- and here's the nut quote (from you):
"Snyder insists that responsible citizens must be armed and must resist when confronted with crime. I don’t think that’s the case, myself. That’s your "Dodge City" scenario with a six-shooter on every hip."
It seems to me that you brush away the central contention opposing without (in the essay at hand, anyway) responding in kind. You and others have spent considerable (and, I hasten to add, well-spent) energy knocking down the "Dodge City" scenario as being overwrought, to say the least. To then turn around and use it as a broom to rid yourself of the pesky -- and I submit inevitable -- conclusion of the train of reason strikes me as a tad disingenuous.
And I say that with all affection for both you and the cause.
Now, I should say that I agree in part with you when you argue that it's not really necessary that every "herbivore" go armed and be ready to respond with deadly force to threats -- only that the odds a predatory carnivore might encounter such be seen to be -- shall we say -- dispositive. Or, at any rate, close enough to certainty as to render untenable any course involving petty coercion as a means of making a living.
But to go from there to say that the former case SHOULD NOT obtain... I don't follow, and must vigorously disagree. The option MUST remain open, and all opposition to that must be met with vigorous counters in all venues. Without that, the deterrent effect of the possibility of meeting an armed "herbivore" is obviated.
As for the existence of a police force, I concede that there may be a valid reason for it. But I see little in my day-to-day going about my business that persuades me of that.
And I suspect that has more to do with the nature of legislatures than of police officers.
Would you be so kind as to restate your position in eighth-grade English? I'm not sure I grasp your objections.
Oops. Bad case of verbal diarrhea, there, wunnit? ::wince::
1) to police forces? None, really. To the notion that ONLY police forces have the charge of enforcing the law? Many. I think your essay makes that case pretty well.
2) To the assertion of the universal right of self-defense? None; I'm in favor. To any restriction on that? Only to assure that any action thus taken be a "righteous shoot" and that bad shoots carry sanctions. Otherwise, opposed.
2a) To a requirement that all and sundry go armed -- instinctive as an infringement on liberty, but I'm sympathetic to the notion of going armed as a civic duty.
3) To what I see as a knee-jerk invocation of the "Dodge City" canard? Strong, possibly knee-jerk on my part. Probably a minor point, on reflection. But I don't think that the Dodge City scenario is/was real in the first place. It strikes me more as an excuse for a power grab by Wyatt Earp types than anything else. In most ways, the so-called "wild West" was quieter than the mean streets of any liberal-controlled, gun-controlled modern city.
Which are, we are reminded, some times more dangerous -- statistically -- than downtown Baghdad.
I may be over-reacting there. But it's such a frequent reaction from the Left to assertions of RKBA, self-defence, and the like that... I react.
And... oh, bother! I'm not sure I'm doing any better. Am I?
The cops have *always* had the "us vs them (everybody else)" attitude. All we're seeing is that "militarization" affords them more opportunity to express that attitude in more lethal ways.
The "minority" community has had the opposite attitude, with "us"(community) and "them"(cops) reversed, for understandable reasons. I say understandable because I have a black friend (solidly upper-middle class, college grad, family man, etc) describe to me his DWB "offence".
What can be done? I'm not sure that anything *will* be done until the minority attitude seeps into the genral populace - and I sort of hope against hope that it occurs faster. When the majority of the voters starts demanding accountabilty, we'll get it. Until then, when dealing with cops, watch your six.
You want Police with the right attitude? Head over to LawDog's place.
Normally I don't carry my XD-45, but if I were planning on going into an area where I could run into a 'situtaion' I'd have it and both spare mags. Heck, I might even be uncivilized and top off the magazine to give me the full 40 rounds of .45 ACP (normally I think 39 should be sufficient).
However, I'm very against no-knock warrants and dynamic entry. Unless there's some sort "gun to a kid's head" scenario the world would be much better served by cutting water and power while blocking the sewer pipe. In most cases it wouldn't take much subterfuge to get the suspects to come out where they can be grabbed. Heck, someone kicks in my door and I'm likely to shoot first and check IDs later, but if it's 2:30AM and there's police and fire trucks with lights twirling in the street when an uniformed officer bangs on my door and yells that we have to evacuate immediately due to a gas leak (or other plausible 'problem') I'd end up cuffed in my PJ's before I could figure out what was going on.
Yeah, I've got to put LawDog on the blogroll. Soon.
We have been traveling down this path for years and sorry it is creeping toward a police state. The goverment is freely issuing M16's granade launchers and PD's are obtaing armored vehicles bullet proof vest MP-5 machine guns Barreltt rifles, FOR WHAT? The war on some drugs?
Revolution is sometimes a good thing but no power wants it, hence the guns gotta go because when the great boot come down it will come down like Stalin’s Russia Khmer Rouge or Hitler’s Germany. Having the guns makes it eaiser.
Take your pick history is loaded with genocide.
I say disarm them with whatever we can own before it’s too late.
This link Sweet Cucumber in a Vinegar Barrel is mostly about Abu Gharib, but it discusses the psychological impact of uniforms and conditions where abuse by authority can arise.
Personally, I think Cops should get 1 free kill then be forced to retire. If they can't respect another's life perhaps fear for their job will balance the fear for their life in the exceptional circumstances.
Just checked out LawDog. YESS!! Good rec, and thanks a bunch. Goin' on the BTB blogroll TO-NITE.
Credit to Barrett - they will not sell or repair cal .50s for LEOs in jurisdictions where citizens are forbidden to own them.
There is absolutely no reason for the police to have automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are used for suppressive fire in a military enviroment, not for taking down some drug dealer. In the case of these raids the police should have overwhelming numbers, they know they are going to be conducting the raid, right? This obviates the need to "lay down fire" and therefore reduces the risk of a stray round hitting an innocent or a fellow cop.
Learn some marksmanship.
If' you're stuck with a 9mm carbine, a three-round burst option is very handy.
How'd they end up "stuck with" a 9mm carbine? Every police department has shotguns available and a pump action is almost as fast as a semi-auto. Also, I've never heard of any department that isn't allowed to have a rifle caliber carbine as a duty weapon.
On the other hand, I believe that citizens should have the right to own fully automatic weapons.
Title: Unintended Consequences
Excerpt: The need for a post like this is brought to you courtesy of the War On Drugs, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the United States Government. All of their rights reserved. Yours, however, are forfeit.
Blog name: The Freeholder