Weaponized Cops and the Future of Freedom

[WilliamPitt]

(Photo: William Rivers Pitt)

Weaponized Cops and the Future of Freedom
By William Rivers Pitt
Truthout | Op-Ed

Friday 25 April 2014

On Tuesday, in a PR move that makes the GOP's embrace of Cliven Bundy seem like genius by comparison, the New York City Police Department took to social media in a doomed attempt to get snuggly with the general population. The NYPD asked people on Twitter to share their positive experiences with New York cops via the hashtag #myNYPD, and for a few heartbeats, all was rosy...until it wasn't.

Because someone posted their picture of a Black kid screaming in pain while getting hammered into a car hood by three armored cops.

And someone else posted their picture of a Black woman getting lit up by two armored cops while a third cop in an officer's uniform tore the hair from her head with a look on his face that said he knew he was doing God's good work.

And someone else posted their picture of a cop putting his knee to the neck of a small and clearly helpless dog above a caption that read, "The dog was reaching for a gun."

And someone else posted their picture of a beefy cop with his fist cocked and rage painted across his big White face, said picture capturing the moment just before the cameraperson was punched.

And it went on, and on, eventually spreading across the country and the world, until #myNYPD became a repository for just about every documented incident of police brutality on the planet over the last three years.

Tricky tricky tricky, that social media thing. Given the NYPD's well-documented deplorable behavior toward non-white people for generations, toward protesters going well back before the 2004 Republican convention, and most especially upon the advent of the Occupy movement, combined with the fact that modern telephonic technology pretty much makes everyone a photojournalist these days, one would think that whoever is in charge of the NYPD's Twitter account would not be stupid enough to bait that particular bear.

Nope, and too late. Can't un-ring the bell.

It's not just New York. This eruption of police violence, of police malevolence, is nationwide. According to an Associated Press report from late last year, "Coming soon to your local sheriff: 18-ton, armor-protected military fighting vehicles with gun turrets and bulletproof glass that were once the U.S. answer to roadside bombs during the Iraq war. The hulking vehicles, built for about $500,000 each at the height of the war, are among the biggest pieces of equipment that the Defense Department is giving to law enforcement agencies under a national military surplus program."

According to the ACLU, "Billions of dollars' worth of military weapons and equipment is available to local police departments through grant programs administered by federal agencies such as the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security. Until now, this has gone on with very little public oversight. Too little has been known about how much military equipment law enforcement agencies have, why they have it, and how they are using it."

(snip)



(Photo: William Rivers Pitt)

What we have before us is an ominous confluence - decades of profoundly racist "wars" on drugs and crime that inspired both voters and elected officials to slap aside Constitutional law in favor of the ongoing sham of "security," 300 million guns loose across the countryside cocked and locked with the ammo of associated paranoia, piles of war weapons left over from our blood-sodden overseas adventures available to any township that asks for them, combined with and aggravated by the plastic-sheeting-and-duct-tape travesty that is the ongoing "War On Terror" - which has lulled us into believing there is nothing strange or abnormal or threatening about everyday cops driving tanks, wearing body armor and packing heat better suited for a battlefield in our back yards.

Also, and not to be overlooked, is the fact that some people do throw bombs into crowds. It happened, right there on live television.

The rest: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23303-weaponized-cops-and-the-future-of-freedom

[flamin lib]

1. My SIL is Marine (not active, but there and no ex- Marines)

and we were watching TVNews about local SWAT teams. He says,"Dam, they have better stuff than I did in the Philippines!"

There is something wrong when local cops have better equipment than active duty military.

[merrily]

5. I wish all of America could have seen what was going in the streets of

Watertown and Cambridge Massachusetts overnight and during the day until the surviving Tsarnaev brother was captured. Not to mention that a total of 7 cities and towns were "sheltering in place" all day.

On a work day, few to no cars or pedestrians in seven cities and towns, including the City of Boston. Black tank-like vehicles going street to street with cops clinging to the outside of the vehicle and jumping on and off as they knocked on door after door.

Was it all necessary and proper or not? I don't know, but I thought I was watching some dystopian nightmare movie that went on for hours and hours.

Did all this happen since 911, or was it going on before as well? Don't know. But, the secret's out. We in Boston have been living in an uber surveilled, discreetly-occupied city.

BTW, kudos to whoever came up with the term "shelter in place." Sounds like what everyone dreams of doing on a lazy, rainy Sunday morning, doesn't it?

[WilliamPitt]

2. Up

[Auggie]

3. Take away assault rifles and fighting vehicles won't be necessary

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. Not really.

Assault rifles (even semi-automatic civilian replicas) by definition fire lower-powered cartridges than ordinary hunting rifles. If cops are worried about their ballistic vests being penetrated (thus the "need" for armored vehicles), they have a lot more to fear from most bolt-action hunting rifles than an AR-15.

But I don't think any of this is about necessity anyway. It's about the insular "us vs them" cop mentality, about boys and their toys, and above all about control.

[merrily]

6. I have made my share criticisms of cops.

On the other hand, a good number of them in everyone's city or town leave for work every day not knowing if they will return home that night to their loves and their children. Whether their families will pay the rent next month with their paychecks or with survivors' benefits.

We can say accurately that no one really knows if they will return home from work or (ugh) school that day, but it is not a danger of which others are conscious of every day.

That has to generate a lot of desperation fr whatever control they can manage, as well as a lot of PTSD and, yes, a lot of us versus them and thin blue lines into which an opening cannot be wedged from the outside.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. Good points.

I can be critical (snarky, even) about the insular nature of most police forces, but it's a very understandable reaction to what they deal with. So too is some of the callous brutality we've all seen. That doesn't make it right, not by a long shot. But I can certainly understand how it arises.

How to combat the effects of that insularity is a pretty damn difficult question to answer. I with I had better ideas in that regard.

[merrily]

12. Thanks. Yours as well.

One thing does not cancel out the other, does it?

Peoples be complicated.

I think there is a particular issue between the left and cops as well, because in general we tend to be less accepting of authority, especially when it has a gun strapped to its hip. Many times, rightly so, but still. And we are more likely to descry brutality, profiling, etc. than is the right. Again, often rightly so, but it may not seem just to the cops.

I think we lost a lot of police union members that way--and their brothers in the Fire Depts., even if the unions themselves endorsed and supported our candidates. (And, if you listen to some of things that leaders like Trumka say, we may lose leadership someday.)

Anyway, I think the left might do well for many reasons to try to reconcile all these issues in some mutually beneficial and respectful way. For one thing, it might result in less hostility to leftist demonstrators and fewer aggressive "crowd control" measures.

And, there are all those missing votes.....

[merrily]

13. Dupe. Duh. Deleted.

[Savannahmann]

14. Question, and it's probably a silly one.

But since it is a fact that police officers are more likely to die in a car related situation, than gunshots, why don't the cops wear seat belts religiously? I can't tell you how often I glance at the cop car and see the seatbelt is not on. They spent millions of dollars on firearms, training, bullet proof this and that, armored cars, but don't even take the most basic precaution available to reduce or eliminate the automobile related deaths.

You could really reduce the struck by car category by putting them in the same OSHA approved safety equipment so drivers can SEE them and try and avoid them. Road work crews and people in industrial environments wear the stuff every day to try and reduce or eliminate accidents. Don't tell me it's not safe, the Police in Europe wear enough high visibility stuff to be seen from orbit, the British Police Cars are painted to be as visible as possible. Why not the American cops?



British Police Cars.



American cops would reject those because they're not sexy enough and everyone knows black tactical is the best way to avoid being seen, which increases the chances of being run the hell over.

[merrily]

15. Good questions, all, but I have no clue.

Seat belts--maybe you have to be able to leap out of the car instantly? That's all I can think of.

I am not associated with any police, either professionally or personally. If you know any, ask. I'd be interested in the answer. Or, you could start an OP and see if anyone here knows.

[Savannahmann]

19. Part of it is the image of "manly" or Macho.

The Air Force did a study and found that contrary to the instinctive idea, that Black was not a good color for painting things that you wanted to make as difficult to see at night as possible. This study was done prior to the fielding of the F-117 Stealth that was going to fly only at night on operational missions. So this study suggested that grey would be a much better color to use, and the advocates pointed out the obvious question, why make something as difficult to see on radar, easier to see by eye?

It seems that real men fly black aircraft. In the 1980's, you used to see the aircraft painted with camouflage, or with some colorful logo on the tail usually with a skeleton or some other symbol of death. Yet all of these techniques some of which make some sense are gone. No aircraft have camouflage any longer. Perhaps someone decided that it restricted the deployment of the aircraft, I mean, one painted to blend in when viewed from above with a forrest would stand out like a neon sign over the desert or the ocean. Perhaps they decided that universal pain jobs were the most efficient, and we didn't expect to have the enemy above us any longer considering the power and accuracy of radar.

However along the same time period, you will notice an increase in the development of the SWAT teams in the world of police. Before that, it was common for police officers to wear distinctive and visible uniforms. Generally speaking, city police wore light blue. Sheriff's wore brown or tan, and state police wore green or tan. Now, very few departments wear these colors. Most have switched to black. They no longer wear the heavy uniform trousers, but most wear a variation of tactical, which can be read as military style pants with cargo pockets on the thigh.

I mentioned the 1980's, and as a boy reaching the adult threshold I was in Anaheim California then. The police there wore tan uniforms. Today, those uniforms are like everyone else's, black. The situations in which a black uniform would be useful are very limited. It is restricted to a situation in which you would be able to blend into a shadow. Yet, the most you could hope to do that would be half the time, daylight does exist after all, and even then it wouldn't hurt to be wearing tan hiding in a shadow. It would be much better to hide behind something in that situation because then not only is vision blocked, but so are those pesky bullets that the police worry about frantically.

Someone decided that black was a more intimidating color for the uniforms, and scary is better than not when all things are considered. Yet, is it really better is the question. In 2013, eleven officers were struck by vehicles. Thirty one were shot and killed. We don't know how many were injured, so we'll stay with the dead. How many of those eleven officers would be alive today if they had been wearing the same sort of safety visibility equipment that is required for people who pick up the trash along the side of the road? How many would be alive if they were wearing don't run me over stuff?

The image of the police, the visual image is an important one. If you are wearing something easily visible, and recognizable, the message is simple, I'm here to help. The picture above of the British Police. They are exceedingly visible, and the message you get from that is what can I do to help? Contrast that with the standard uniform we see every day and the message there is I'm in charge, and you will obey me or else. Everyone resents authority that demands blind obedience.

Uniforms are important, they present the image of organization. Mess with me, and the entire organization will come down on you. Business executives have their uniform, expensive suit, tie, and shoes. The more they cost, the more important the person is. I read an article about doing business in the Russian Federation a few years ago. The politician they were interviewing about meeting with foreign businessmen said he looked out the window, and if the person he was meeting did not arrive in a German Sedan, read that to mean Mercedes or Audi, a luxury sedan, then the meeting was canceled. The advice of the article was to wear Armani, or some other designer suits, and drive an expensive car. Presumably a guy driving a Ford couldn't afford the bribes the individual expected.

Look at the Army. The beret is intended to show membership in an elite community. We got that from the British Army. The Paratroopers wore Maroon Berets. The Rangers wore Black. The Special Forces wore Green. Then the entire army decided they were special, elite, and switched to black berets. The Rangers being outraged at this switched to Tan berets to make sure the people know they were more elite than the regular army. But it's interesting isn't it that the Army went with Black berets for their soldiers. Black, the scary color, the intimidating color.

Even when looking at skin color, many people instinctively gravitate toward the lighter colors. Someone did a study a few years ago, and found that the more desirable African-Americans were the ones with lighter skin tone. The darker ones were viewed with suspicion, even distrust. In other words, fear. This is an instinctive response, not learned racism, but a fear we have of darkness. People are afraid of the dark, they can't see, they are left to imagine things in the dark. Danger lurks in the dark.

The police uniforms then are obvious. Fear me, I am the one with power. I am wearing black uniform, and you should be afraid of us all. The British police uniforms on the other hand are different, see me, I am here to help you, and provide you with whatever assistance you may need. British police want to be seen, and they want you to know they are there. American police want to hide, want to intimidate, and want you to be afraid of them on an instinctive level.

[merrily]

20. You have obviously put a lot of studying into this and also

seem very passionate about it. You are a wonderful writer too.

Have you considered writing something about it for publication or applying for a grant to delve into it further and report? Whether the colors affect the behavior of the cops and/or the reaction of citizen's to them, might be interesting to know, for example. I also wonder if different assignments might use different uniforms. The "I'm here to help" colors for a traffic cop near an elementary school, for example, and the "fear me" colors for a cop who is transporting an accused killer to and from prison and court for trial.

Private security firms may be interested, too because the same considerations apply to their personnel, both uniformed and not.

Who knows, maybe you could see the world as a consultant to public law enforcement and private security firms around the globe

I wonder if any grants are available via Homeland Security? Otherwise, if you are interested, contact a grantmakers' library and your federal and state reps to see what might be available.

Maybe you are already doing something with your obvious passion for this, but I just thought I'd throw out some things, in case.

Either way, I think your info is cool and so is your interest in it. Thanks.

[Auggie]

7. Haven't hunting rifles been around for years?

Agree with what you write. But let's ban the assault rifles anyway.

Someone is profitting from all this control too.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Yep.

But I don't think the move towards militarized police derives from actual need as much from perceived need. The very large majority of cops killed are killed with handguns.

[Brown Coat]

10. Let's not

[rhett o rick]

17. The fighting vehicles are needed to quell the revolt when it comes. The oligarchs

are ready for a revolt.

[bullsnarfle]

11. The cops in my neck-o-the-woods

shot up a car that had just been 'jacked. The woman hostage & her 2 small kids were in it. The 2 cops fired something like 58 rounds RIGHT INTO THE CAR while the woman & kids were IN THE DAMN CAR!!! One of the kids was hit but fortunately not too bad.

Oh, sure, they killed the perp, but DAMN! They coulda killed that woman and her kids, not that it mattered as long as they lit up the bad guy like it was the freakin' wild west, right? The cops around here scare the crap outta me, no kidding.

[WatermelonRat]

16. Does anyone know of historical statistics for police brutality?

I rather strongly suspect that what we have isn't so much an "eruption of police violence, of police malevolence" as an explosion of awareness thanks to the internet and cell phone cameras. That doesn't make it any better, of course, but it's important to understand the nature of the problem and that it's not something that's just suddenly happening now.

[JoeyT]

18. I agree that it's probably an increase in awareness.

Yelling "Stop resisting!" while you kick an unconscious person into a coma doesn't work anymore.