General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemilitarizing the Police - Step One
Step one, take off those fucking sunglasses - let everyone see your eyes. We know why you wear those things, they are like war paint. Once the sunglasses go on - you transform into a bad ass motherfucker who's gonna kick down doors and spread eagle the insurgents on the floor. Maybe you learned it in Iraq or Afghanistan but this is the United States and we are all citizens with rights. Your job is to "Serve and Protect" not dominate the battlefield.
While you are at it, take off your helmet, your ballistic vest, your fucking camouflage combat fatigues, your tactical gloves and your god damn desert boots. Leave the tear gas, gas masks, and the automatic weapons in the trunk of your police car and no - you do not need a vehicle able to withstand land mines - you need a car, with a light, a siren, and a radio to talk to your boss so you can follow orders. That's right - you are not a one man wrecking ball or a lean mean killing machine you are a member of community law enforcement. Its time you start learning to respect our rights to peaceably assemble and yes - scream and shout and hold up vulgar signs and more importantly video tape everything you do. You may not like it - but it's our right.
If you stop looking like an invasion maybe we'll be able to stop treating you like the enemy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Uncle Joe
(58,342 posts)Thanks for thread, Blue Idaho.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who roughed up the Huffington Post reporter in McDonalds? He wasn't wearing a badge and despite numerous attempts by the reporter to get his name because he did NOT have a badge, he refused to respond.
I hope this question is asked AND ANSWERED. Because there have been stories that these are not regular police, but private 'contractors'.
Who called them in, and where were they from and WHY were they not wearing badges?
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)Put these guys in paramilitary garb and they all think they ARE the law - not that they are there to enforce the law and protect the citizenry. They all report to somebody - who is responsible for all their actions? Who is responsible for "command and control?" Otherwise it's called a Police Riot.
Enough of this "that was yesterday" bullshit - heads should roll... Will they?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)asked for his name. They are working hard now to distract from all of this, and the people should not allow that to happen. I would like to know whose idea it was to call that military unit in.
I know from OWS that after people demanded to know why all those military like assaults on the protesters were allowed, and who ordered them, we found out that it was coordinated at a Federal level. Mayors were the ones who actually ordered it, but it went all the way to the Federal level according to documents later released through the FOIA. And BEFORE that, people who suspected it were being called CTs etc.
This is unacceptable in a civilized society. The idea should cause outrage among all Americans.
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)
CrispyQ
(36,446 posts)I thought this article about the psychology of uniform color was really fascinating.
Psychological influence of uniforms cited by authorities
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, April 28, 2008
http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/280408uniform.htm
snip...
The studies cited found that black uniforms elicit emotions of anger, hostility, dominance, and aggression:
Applying the results of these studies in color to the police uniform suggests that darker police uniforms may send negative subconscious signals to citizens. A dark police uniform may subconsciously encourage citizens to perceive officers as aggressive, evil, or corrupt and send a negative message to the community.
Even more interesting are further findings that suggest both police officers and citizens are more likely to engage each other violently when the authorities come dressed in black:
The experiment with the colored jerseys also suggests that police officers in dark uniforms subconsciously may act more aggressively; therefore, departments should consider modifying police uniform colors.
The police uniform also may influence the safety level of the officer who wears it. Dark colored uniforms may elicit subconscious negative feelings from citizens, who may perceive the officer as aggressive, and subsequently, encourage them to consider violent action when confronted by the police.
Research has also shown that police uniforms with a lighter half have been ranked by citizens as "good, honest, helpful, and competent, the lighter colored sheriff's uniform rated noticeably higher for warmth and friendliness".
It is telling that police have ditched these in favor of the all black approach.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)were in the right, but things just look bad. Obviously, there are cases where they were in the wrong and should be accountable without someone bringing up reasonable doubt. I think it will make both sides act responsibly.
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)Same goes for all these yokels "playing soldier." The whole dynamic changes. Cops like it because they can use it as a tool to intimidate. Is that really the relationship the cops want with their communities? If so - the while force should be fired.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)intimidating uniforms ever, IMO.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...I'd like to see district attorneys prioritize prosecution efforts in order of the impact of the particular crime on the community rather than the ease of conviction. I'd like to see a cop a bit more interested in drunk or reckless drivers than expired parking meters or registration stickers.
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)To balance the books down at city hall? Damn straight!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...police follow cars for the purpose of entering plate #s hoping to find someone with an overdue unpaid parking ticket; it's heinous when they find one and then IMPOUND the vehicle.
...60% of those in prison are part of a minority in an area where that minority makes up 6% of the population.
...the system doesn't have a means to grant a hearing to someone in prison who can PROVE his innocence.
I THINK it's a huge problem when the justice system shows more dedication to technical diligence than to basic morals and common sense. Most parts of criminal procedure and the entire Bill of Rights were developed around the idea that it would be less morally offensive to have 10 guilty folks remain free than to have 1 innocent person imprisoned. I think its time to send some cops and prosecutors to a class run by the community on which crimes need more resources and which need less.
I THINK a county with unsolved murders has no business arresting anyone for an overdue library book.
I THINK these repugnancies are Constitutionally horrifying.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)when driving the rather ratty old car I owned at the time through a "fancy" suburb of Minneapolis on my way to work. The cop was a screaming, abusive asshole. The ticket had actually been paid. Took me two months to come up with the money to get my impounded car back.
I went to court to explain the situation. The prosecutor looked up a bunch of things, said "there is no reason you should have ever been stopped" and apologized, muttering something about stupid suburban cops.
The majority of cops, especially suburban cops who seldom see real crime, are shitheels drunk on adolescent power fantasies.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...3 feet from a fire hydrant that THE CITY had buried in snow. Ticket was $85 and, had there been a truck available, I'm so sure the car would have been impounded. ($150 for the tow plus...)
Justice is often criminally short on common sense.
phil89
(1,043 posts)That's a huge part of the problem imo. Pick one or the other and be trained accordingly.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And that mindset is drilled into the military from day one. On a battlefield that may well be acceptable. Not so much in civilian life. Most people who serve in the military realize this. Some don't and for some reason a lot of them turn up in police uniforms. The people paying your salary are not "the enemy."
do you think that military personnel are incapable of separating that experience from their later life? If so, I call bullshit.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Most certainly can and do. Some don't, and a lot who can't recognize the difference seem to wind up in police costumes.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)What sort of data do you have on the numbers of former military members with mental imbalances in the police vs the number of non-veterans with the same mental imbalances?
It seems to me if you gave a fuck about people with violent impulses who lack self control and empathy being on the force, you'd make your concerns known through an interest in rigorous psychological testing, not stereotyping good men and women whose service history is not an indicator of their mental states.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
LiberalArkie
(15,708 posts)not infantry or gunnery.
The MP and trained and selected for their patience. I have dealt with many of them and they are generally good people and respectful
rock
(13,218 posts)
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Hoppy
(3,595 posts)Yet, there are situations like Clive Bundy where the assholes protecting Bundy had weapons that were likely able to penetrate the average patrol car.
Might a solution be that the armored cars need a warrant before removal from a central location?
There are real situations where all this gear is needed - but the cops are all to quick to use all these toys they get from the Pentagon. How about you leave the riot gear in the armored personnel carriers parked at an armory? Perhaps you need a judges approval to unlock the gate...
Make it damn inconvenient to get to this stuff.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)You've got to be kidding me, right?
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Especially the mirrored ones. They make the face a mask
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Would you be okay with police ordering you to remove your glasses "For the safety of the officer", or not? After all, it "makes the face a mask", whatever that means.
Why is it critical that you can see his/her eyes? is it equally critical that they can see yours as well?
annabanana
(52,791 posts)the front and front seat windows of a car?
A lot of information between drivers just can't be done with turn signals alone. We rely more on eye contact than you might think.
I prefer people to remove sunglasses when we're speaking, unless in a high-sun situation.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)As a matter of fact, I'm finding quite difficult to imagine a situation where I would do so. I've waved people through, but never did that require eye contact. For the record, I drive with sunglasses on habitually, unless it is nighttime. I'm photosensitive.
It's fine that you prefer that, but I can see absolutely zero justification for insisting that an officer performs his/her duties without shades. The part about it magically transforming people into jerks was funny though.
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)The Metropolitan Police in London UK has banned the wearing of mirrored and very dark lensed sunglasses by its officers in an effort to make officers appear more open and honest.
“Lenses should not be mirrored…Sunglasses will always be removed when speaking with or dealing with members of the public. Those officers wearing prescription sunglasses will also be required to remove them when dealing or speaking with members of the public and revert to their SIS (standard issue spectacles)”
So not everyone finds it so funny...
The Metropolitan Police in London UK has banned the wearing of mirrored and very dark lensed sunglasses by its officers in an effort to make officers appear more open and honest.
“Lenses should not be mirrored…Sunglasses will always be removed when speaking with or dealing with members of the public. Those officers wearing prescription sunglasses will also be required to remove them when dealing or speaking with members of the public and revert to their SIS (standard issue spectacles)”
So not everyone finds it so funny...
I highlighted the stupid part.
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)You might try reading "Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction" By Andreas Kapardis or "Weapons and Eye Contact as Instigators or Inhibitors of Aggressive Arousal in Police-Citizen Interaction" as published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology...
Again - not everybody thinks this stuff is stupid.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)Eye contact is an essential element of safety.
Atman
(31,464 posts)They want a good look at you. We should be able to get a good look at the cops.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)They are numbered, if I recall correctly.
calimary
(81,194 posts)I've found that when there's no stop signs and several cars approach, it's ALWAYS a good idea to try to make eye contact with the other drivers. Always! That way you KNOW you see them and you can be a lot more certain that they see you.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)When you only interact with Cops and Criminals, you start putting people into those two buckets.
Flyboy_451
(230 posts)take off those fucking sunglasses
Only when we are face to face in a mutually respectful conversation. Not only do they block glare and improve overall visibility and comfort, they are also shatter proof safety glasses to protect from everything from blowing dust to dangerous debris and fragments.
take off your helmet
My response is somewhat different than the typical officer as my shift is spent on a motorcycle. Similar to above. As for during normal duties, I've never seen a patrol officer wear one in anything other than a situation that is potentially dangerous.
your ballistic vest
Now you're just being stupid. Regardless of how nice you or the people you know May be, the reality is that our vests are truly a required item. The situations that we are in during the course of our normal duties are potentially dangerous situations. Ballistic vests offer some level of protection from everything from stabbing and impact injuries to their primary benefit, being bullet resistant.
camouflage combat fatigues
While this is not typical for the average patrol officer, it is not uncommon for specialized units, such as SWAT. The most prevalent type that I have seen is a mixture of grays, blues and black, a very effective urban camouflage. Once again a protective measure for many of the roles they are called on to perform.
your tactical gloves
Once again, these are a piece of gear that protects us from minor, maybe even more serious that can be incurred in the course of our normal duties. Examples include but are not limited to: broken glass at an auto accident scene, cuts and abrasions that occur during physical confrontations (including the possibility of edged weapons).
In my case they are also a piece of safety gear for motorcycle riding as well.
you need a car, with a light, a siren, and a radio
That is generally what we have. Please explain though, how having a vehicle that is protective against any threat that we may face is a bad thing. Many simple handguns will easily penetrate the glass and door panels of a standard car. Intermediate to high powered rifles will turn the average car, and anyone inside it, into Swiss cheese without effort. Armored, not ARMED, vehicles are a protective measure.
Leave the tear gas, gas masks, and the automatic weapons in the trunk of your police car
Agreed. So long as the situation allows me to remain close to my vehicle and does not warrant the use of such items.
As for actual machine guns, as in full auto, remove them from all patrol cars. The only time that they are warranted is under very unusual circumstances for specialized units. These can be stored in the deployment vehicles for such units. Aside from this, they have no place in law enforcement.
you are not a one man wrecking ball or a lean mean killing machine you are a member of community law enforcement
Absolutely correct! This is also a two way street. When we are received with aggression, we are not going to be carrying milk and cookies.
respect our rights to peaceably assemble and yes - scream and shout and hold up vulgar signs and more importantly video tape everything you do. You may not like it - but it's our right.
Once again, absolutely correct, and also a two way street again. When protestors are approached by LE, if you instantly spew hateful profanity, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Perfect example, during the local OWS rallies, this is precisely what happened when I approached simply to ask that the protestors clear a pathway for people trying to make their way along the sidewalks and streets. Respect works both ways.
As for recording, I strongly encourage it. Every chance you get, turn on your cell phone camera, mount a camera inside your car, wear a helmet cam on your motorcycle. When we, yes, I said "WE" step out of line, remain calm, record it, as long as it is safe to do so. Do not make a bad situation worse by being an ass. One ass on the scene is enough.
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Police officers should have the tools they need to protect themselves and the public they serve at their disposal. My point is about the over-militarization of many local police forces and the danger of over-responding to situations. I'm concerned with the rise of the "warrior cop" and the mentality it represents. Are SWAT teams really needed to deliver every warrant? More to the point, if tensions are high and people are protesting - is showing up with military grade hardware ready to dominate the battle field smarter than looking like "peace officers" ready to serve and protect the community? The decision may very well change the outcome. Certainly if things get out of hand additional resources can be staged to be accessible without having their presence escalate the situation.
Obviously - as you say - this is a two way street and there is no doubt that at times force must be met with force. But sadly what I think I saw on TV the other night looked more like a a police riot than anything else.
Flyboy_451
(230 posts)So, I can't answer to what you saw on TV.
As for the over-militarization of police departments, I don't fully agree or disagree. Unfortunately, our world, and thus our communities are constantly changing. Sometimes for the better and sometimes not. One of the challenges that we face is being prepared for things that we cannot foresee.
The now famous L.A. Bank robbery is an excellent example of local police being ill prepared for an unforeseen event. Until then, it was nearly unheard of for a patrol officer to have access to anything more than body armor suitable for defense against handguns and shotguns only, a service pistol and an 18"-20" barreled shotgun. As can easily be seen in the coverage of that event, several officers paid a very high price because of being ill prepared.
To think of it another way, if you had a minor house fire and called the fire department, would you expect them to show up in their walking around uniform, or their full protective equipment? In the case of the local FD or PD, some very bad things can come from the same situation. Bear in mind that when we get the call, we have probably received exactly zero details. We have no idea what w are walking into until we get there.
Now put it in the perspective of a protest with strong potential for racial and emotional tensions. Now imagine that a counter protest group is present and tempers flare. Would you rather have me arrive without adequate safety equipment and have to wait for me to get geared up before coming to the aid of citizens who are facing a very real threat of injury? Or would you prefer that I arrive prepared to step in and attempt to restore peace quickly, before it goes even further? The key element is that we do not know what the situation is until we arrive. I will promise you this. I personally will never knowingly violate your rights, but I will do everything in my power to ensure that my kids don't wake up the next morning to a house without a dad.
From what I have heard of the events in Ferguson, the situation was handled very poorly. It's likely we will never know what spark set off the flames within the protests. One minor over reaction by either group was likely to make a bad situation much worse. When tensions are running high, the smallest stone can cause a tidal wave.
If you want to help change the way that law enforcement interacts with citizens, the only solution is changing everyone's actions. This is the only way to solve the problem, because it only takes one to turn a peaceful protest into a riot. At that point it no longer matters who started it, but it's likely that LE will end it, and that nobody will win.
Some advice for protestors:
RECORD EVERYTHING!
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! But do not overstep them.
DO NOT carry anything that could be used as a weapon!
DO NOT initiate violence.
If an officer approaches you, listen to what he says. He may have a reasonable request. If you shout him down before you know why he is approaching, all you are doing is creating a problem.
If you are asked to move or clear a path, please do so. There may be something going, such as a medical emergency, that you are not aware of.
Utilize PASSIVE resistance.
And some for LE interacting with protestors:
RECORD EVERYTHING!
KNOW THE LAWS regarding civil rights and public demonstrations!
SMILE and talk with protestors. DO NOT shout them down!
Read the crowd! Violence is usually preceded by actions that are easily recognized.
Use diplomacy, NOT FORCE! NEVER initiate violence!
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)that replaced them in Ferguson. Find a picture of Captain Johnson and see how he is dressed when he joins the protesters march. Now note the difference in the attitude of the protesters and then explain why we should not think the color and type of uniform is cause for concern.
Flyboy_451
(230 posts)But while we are on that topic, please explain how the appearance of a uniform demands any specific reaction. The uniform is a function of the job requirements. The actions of the officers and protestors are a function of their perceptions and choices.
Any individual of either group has the ability to spark violence. Everyone bears responsibility for their actions.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)adds a mystery to the person and especially hiding the eyes, you can tell a lot about a persons feelings and mood by their eyes. Like you said it is perception and the use of it to intimidate people.
Function can be a case of overkill, in an occupation that doesn't even rank in the top ten for mortality why all the precautions? If the color doesn't matter and when most occupational deaths occur from traffic accidents, why not use florescent orange for high visibility and safety?
I don't know about other states but in New York the state police cars are black and hard to see. The police are also the last to turn on their headlights in the rain, snow, or at dusk, why is that? Light bars are made to look like luggage racks, must be for less wind resistance, right? Color is not only for intimidation it can also be for hiding and being deceptive.
It's obvious that police don't want to be seen and when they are seen they want to appear intimidating. Every design they use points to that fact.
christx30
(6,241 posts)Putting it on my facebook with "---- Blue Idaho" at the end of it.
Hopefully it'll be shared and become a thing.
Blue Idaho
(5,045 posts)
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)What's with the shaved heads? It's like a universal cop thing now to shave their heads.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)There is a very good reason cops keep their hair short.
Why do you care? This feels like a case of nitpicking based on your dislike of someone rather than a legitimate grievance.
jmowreader
(50,552 posts)Shaved bald and boot camp buzz cuts ARE intimidating.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)"OMG! did you see how short his hair was! I was in fear for my life!!!"
If you find a buzzcut intimidating, the only thing I can recommend is medication.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Flyboy_451
(230 posts)But I look pretty funny with a big bald spot in the back and a receding hairline up front, so it is cropped quite close.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You said:
Maybe start with what regulation allows?
Flyboy_451
(230 posts)I did not say that. Linuxman did.
But since you asked....
For men, My department requires that hair be above the ears and collar. I would have to look up the regs for women.
Long hair becomes something that can be grabbed. Most of us keep it shorter than required both for this reason and for convenience. If you wear your hair just within the regulations, you are pretty much gonna have to go to the barber shop every other week, if not every week to maintain regulation.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)many guys with that say "screw it" and go with the shaved look.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Cops in the US come across like an occupation force. They are intimidating and contribute to the us versus them mentality that wants to flood the country with more and more guns.
Cops should not be carrying guns routinely and neither should the public. But you can't expect people to leave their guns at home with these goons walking around like an invasion force.
Hotler
(11,412 posts)I don't think the words "To Serve and Protect" on the cop cars here in Englewood, Colorado any more, I'm going to make a point to check.