I believe this is the incident that led to the ramping up of police weaponry and armament

[stevenleser]

The 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery where two suspects wearing body armor and using a car full of armor piercing bullets in AK-47 assault rifles outgunned local law enforcement for a considerable amount of time until S.W.A.T could be brought in. I am not saying I agree or disagree with this incident as justification, just that I seem to remember this is what started police units down the road of requesting higher powered weapons and armor.

[Purveyor]

1. I could have sworn I had all Fox News 'contributors' on ignore but I guess I

missed one.

[Purveyor]

2. There...fixed that. eom

[stevenleser]

3. Might have been clever if you were one of the first 500 people to raise that canard.

You aren't, so it wasn't.

[davidpdx]

6. So what was the purpose other than to taunt another DUer?

Yes Steve appears on Fox (I personally have never seen clips of him and don't watch it), but still was that necessary? I may not always agree with someone on DUer, but acting like that is ridiculous. Just sayin'............

[Purveyor]

8. I will always take the opportunity to 'taught' anyone that 'contributes'

to that POS entity whom ever they may be.

Sorry for my absolute hatred for Fox News and its associates.

[davidpdx]

12. I don't like Fox any more than you do

It still doesn't mean it's necessary.

[Purveyor]

15. Thom Hartmann, Amy Goodman, Larry King are routinely 'called out' for their

works on Russia Today...so what's the difference?

[joshcryer]

30. I called stevenleser out on his Fox News appearances.

When he was calling out RT reporting. I even implied he may be a media whore. I don't see the problem. stevenleser is a great advocate for LGBT and has a big mouth when it comes to getting on TV, I am OK with that. It's not my style of reporting but somebody has got to do it when our media is saturated with that kind of thing.

[davidpdx]

40. Remind me which one of those is a DU member?

[Purveyor]

81. Only Thom Hartmann uses his actual name on this forum with a post just

a few days ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017208838

The other two...hard to say but I would guess Amy is here but not so certain on Larry.

[KittyWampus]

49. so at least you tacitly admit your post was only meant to "call someone out".

But i just read your signature line about hides. Apparently you feel you are an innocent victim.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. stevelesser stopped appearing on RT when he became aware of the anti gay agenda, Thom and Amy

are still there, for their own profit. For a person in the building stages of a career in political punditry, giving up any place with a seat for them is a sacrifice. While I'd not appear on FoxNews, the entire Democratic establishment, including the President of the Untied States, do appear on FoxNews. While I will gladly hold Thom 'Do you own gold' Hartmann up to Mr Lesser's standard, I'm not going to hold either one of them to a higher standard than that of Barack Obama.
So that's the shakes.

[KittyWampus]

48. "taught" anyone?

-snicker-

[Purveyor]

67. OH MY! I made a typo and you found it. I'm sure your day is complete now, eh?

[stevenleser]

14. People who do that are generally low self-esteem folks who feel powerless.

They see someone who appears on TV on whom they decide they want to vent their frustrations anonymously and its the closest they can come to feeling good about themselves and having some sort of effect on the world.

People who are happy with themselves and their lives don't do that kind of thing.

If we really analyze it, President Obama has appeared on Fox, Elizabeth Warren has been on Fox, Dennis Kucinich and Joe Trippi now work there. If you decide you hate everyone who has appeared there, you hate most progressive, liberal and Democratic leaders and members of congress and I am sure that person doesnt want to come out and say he hates those people. So, this attack on me is pretty hypocritical and irrational, but there it is.

[Fumesucker]

18. You have such insight into the minds of the little people, Steven

[BlueCaliDem]

31. + 1000. eom

[Electric Monk]

9. Last time I posted something similar to that it got hidden by jury (4-3).

You might want to consider self-deleting. Or not, and you can roll the dice, it's totally up to you

[Purveyor]

10. Oh well...shit happens. eom

[pintobean]

13. Yes, shit happened. /nt

[treestar]

77. What is wrong with going on Fox News as The Liberal?

It's brave. You're being absurd.

[TheMightyFavog]

4. I thought it was all due to the gang wars in LA in the 80s and early 90s.

Some of those Crip/Blood fights involved the use of some serious firepower, IIRC.

[stevenleser]

5. I'm sure many things played a role, but I seem to remember news stories at the time and several

times since then talking about how police units all over the country took note of the 1997 north hollywood bank robbery as a signal they needed to be prepared in case something like this happened to them.

Rude Pundit and I talked about the militarization of police on our radio show this week. There is no reason 99% of jurisdictions out there need armored personnel carriers or tanks.

[Rex]

32. 9/11 changed everything.

They really meant it.

[Marr]

7. That was an argument for greater gun control, not the militarization of police.

You can always count on the US government to learn exactly the wrong lesson.

[stevenleser]

16. Right, but you can't do that. That's abridging the greatest freedom we have.

- in case it is necessary.

My favorite quote on the subject from a friend from the UK: "Right to bear arms, what a crock of shit that is"

And he was right.

[The Magistrate]

11. I Think You Have Something There, Sir

[spanone]

17. i remember that well. the police couldn't stop them.

[flamingdem]

19. I watched that happen live all day in LA

and it really had an impact.

It was so over the top at the time.

The takeaway was that criminals were able to outgun the police.

At one point a cop went into a gun store to try to get something more powerful

That was something.. and they left the guy to bleed out. His wife brought a suit!
Wonder if she won.

[stevenleser]

22. Exactly, and I think there is a direct line between this event in 1997 and the militarization

of police that we see today

[Egnever]

20. I remember that and I am sure it played a part.

[csziggy]

21. I think you are right - Wikipedia entry agrees

The ineffectiveness of the standard police patrol pistols and shotguns in penetrating the robbers' body armor led to a trend in the United States (including cities such as Miami) toward arming selected police patrol officers, not just SWAT teams, with heavier firepower such as semi-automatic 5.56 mm AR-15 type rifles. SWAT teams, whose close quarters battle weaponry usually consisted of submachine guns that fired pistol cartridges such as the Heckler & Koch MP5, began supplementing them with AR-15-based assault rifles and carbines.[15] Seven months after the incident, the Department of Defense gave 600 surplus M16s to the LAPD, which were issued to each patrol sergeant;[32][33] LAPD patrol vehicles now carry AR-15s as standard issue, with bullet-resistant Kevlar plating in their doors as well.[34] Also as a result of this incident LAPD authorized its officers to carry .45 ACP caliber semiautomatic pistols as duty sidearms, specifically the Smith and Wesson Models 4506 and 4566. Prior to 1997, only LAPD SWAT officers were authorized to carry .45 ACP caliber pistols, specifically the Model 1911A1 .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout#Aftermath_and_controversy

[stevenleser]

24. Huh. I didn't expect there to be such direct confirmation of my theory.

Good find!

[KittyWampus]

50. Steve it'd be great if your research came up with an aggregation of incidents you think

contributed.

[stevenleser]

66. This is something I really wish I could do.

If this can wait a few weeks I might be able to do it.

[stevenleser]

25. I remember that event too. Dropping a bomb on the block.

I recall at the time the newscasters calling it a percussion bomb, but yeah, it burned out an entire block.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

26. I knew some cops who were involved in that, and they were seriously out-gunned

until they were able to get higher powered weapons from some local dealers. (I believe that was what they did.)

It was a scary time.

[Recursion]

37. Only the robbers and a dog were killed IIRC

And the problem was that the robbers had body armor.

[Jenoch]

28. Welcome to the 20th century.

[Jenoch]

29. Who is Steven Leser and why does anyone care about

his opinion on anything?

[KittyWampus]

51. welcome to DU a DISCUSSION forum. People post things to discuss. Radical concept

for some. Seems you already have enough posts to have caught onto how this place works.

[stevenleser]

54. I don't have a time machine. I cannot make it so that this did not happen. And...

I cannot change the decisions that were made in its wake.

This is historical fact, and it is historical fact that impacts an important event of the day.

I don't understand people who would rather remain ignorant as to the history of how things came to be and literally get angry at the person who brings the historical facts up.

[bravenak]

33. I watched it live.

I thought that the Branch Davidian fiasco had something to do with it too. So they didn't have to burn down compounds or something crazy as hell like that.
Or maybe that was the ATF? Can't remember. I think I was 12. But my step dad said that he bets they were going to get better guns after that.

[Tribalceltic]

34. 17 Years Ago

"They" said the Spanish blew up the "Maine" is that relevant?

Can't anyone find a more recent event?

I don't think one incident in 17 years warrants Billions of dollars wasted.

What are the "peace officers" afraid of that they need military grade armor and mine resistant armored personnel carriers? Bullshit on cops laying their life on the line every day, so do nurses, teachers and taxi drivers. More commercial fishermen die every year then cops.

[Action_Patrol]

52. Stop

[link:

|

More recent events: Sovereign Citizens in Arkansas. There's something to be afraid of. I'm not supporting every cop out there (and certainly not defending the need for tanks and mine detectors) but stopping someone for a traffic violation like the above video and getting an AK-47 in your face is awful. Their job isn't to die.



Edit:

[geomon666]

35. I still don't know what any police force is doing with an MRAP. n/t

[Recursion]

36. You mean the incident where only the robbers were killed?

Well, the robbers and a dog.

Seems like the police weren't outgunned there at all.

[jakeXT]

38. The laws were written in 1990 and 1996, the robbers were probably inspired by the movie Heat

Faced with a bloated military and what it perceived as a worsening drug crisis, the 101st Congress in 1990 enacted the National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1208 of the NDAA allowed the Secretary of Defense to “transfer to Federal and State agencies personal property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and ammunition, that the Secretary determines is— (A) suitable for use by such agencies in counter-drug activities; and (B) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.” It was called the 1208 Program. In 1996, Congress replaced Section 1208 with Section 1033.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101699920

And now it's part of GTA V

[Eleanors38]

63. Woops! There it is: WOD. Much more plausible.

[BrotherIvan]

39. It's about $$$ for the MIC

That's it. They are getting rich off perpetual war, arming whoever can pay, and selling to cities and towns. Any questions?

[avebury]

46. Exactly. If they cannot sell their weapons overseas

then they will sell them to US towns and cities.

[BrotherIvan]

73. There's no IF; it is an AND

And their bought politicians will get federal monies to do it. Win win.

[TheKentuckian]

41. Not being able to kill some robbers quick enough once upon a time is a shit justification

for sound cannons, armored armed mine resistant vehicles, and mortars.

I could give a shit about a semi auto rifle in trunk anymore than a shotgun if they could dial down the hair trigger in general and keep in mind that they are highly situational tool not something they need to brandish to intimidate the populace all day everyday or worse.

Access to a semi auto rifle, armor, and kevlar in the doors was not an unreasonable response but we have gone way past that and the community police are now equipped for occupation of enemy territory and by some accounts better than troops doing just that.

No way that incident in anyway justifies the current state of affairs, more of a lame and convenient but transparently bogus excuse. They asked and got, this level of equipment is for something else, the scenarios the equipment was designed for would be my assumption rather than rationalization and excuse making that makes no sense in practical application, this is occupation gear.

[stevenleser]

55. See posts #21 and #54

The short version is, I agree with you. But it seems that the militarization of police can be traced back to that moment.

[aikoaiko]

42. Yes and then add in massive Homeland Security grants and voila.

Motivation plus opportunity

[WinkyDink]

43. 1968: Chicago Police Riot.

[ileus]

44. This reminds me I need to replace my 40.

I traded it earlier this year for a 45.


I'm leaning g20 with a conversion barrel.

[avebury]

45. They may be able to justify militarization in higly

urbanized cities but not in teeny tiny podunk towns.

[Demit]

53. Why? What's different about "urbanized" cities? What's a "highly urbanized" city, anyway?

[avebury]

58. I am thinking of the town with a population of under

2400 getting grenade launchers, tanks or other military gear.

I could understand a large urban city dealing with highly armed criminals committing bank robbery that they might out gun the local LEOs. But in less urban areas and more rural areas you are just giving the local LEOs toys to play with.

[Demit]

69. So "highly urbanized" means "highly armed criminals" to you?

You do understand that urban means city, don't you? If you mean large cities as opposed to small towns, say that. I suspect you don't just mean size, though. You mean URBANIZED, wink wink.

[avebury]

71. No. Highly urbanized mean a heck of a lot more

high value targets for theft - i.e. banks, jewelry stores, etc. I don't associate bank robbery, jewelry store robberies and so on with any particular race. I don't know if you remember the series of bank robberies that occurred in the Chicago area years ago but they were committed by a husband and wife (husband robbed bank, wife drove getaway car).

http://washingtonexaminer.com/crime-history-suburban-chicago-booksellers-were-husband-wife-bank-robbers/article/2502639

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20112142,00.html

Side note, the husband shot my sister-in-law's brother before the incident where the FBI closed in or him. He was a cop at the time.

If you remember the most deadly FBI shoot out, the bad guys were white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout


The North Hollywood shooters were white as well.

So you are absurd to think that highly urbanized cities are subject to only criminal conduct by minorities. Any person, of any race, is capable of committing a crime. Suburban and rural areas tend to have fewer targets of interest (unless you look at extremely rural areas where people are guarding their pot crops). There are parts of SE Oklahoma and Northern Maine that you don't really want to be going to unarmed and minorities would not be your problem.

In this day in age, I would be more concerned about white supremacist gun nuts like those at Cliven Bundy's ranch then any other group.

[Demit]

75. I read your link. How do you think militarized police would prevent bank robberies?

How do you see that working? Policemen in riot gear guarding every bank branch? Cops walking their beats with a sniper rifle & a canister of tear gas? Or are you picturing the chase afterward, cops in armored MRAP vehicles hurtling down city streets throwing flash grenades? Walk me through a scenario where militarizing the police would be a great way to deal with people robbing stores & banks, please.

Besides, your own link explains that rash of bank robberies in Chicago:

"A lot of these banks are located near expressways. So not only do you have better escape, but they are accessible to large highways where you can disappear very quickly. Within a matter of minutes you can be on an expressway that can take you miles away."

Which isn't really describing a dense urban core, is it? It sounds like there were too many targets of interest being located where the "highly urbanized city" started to thin out, toward the suburbs & beyond.

[avebury]

79. Your prior post seemed to allege that I was using racial

bias in stating that there is more of a need for more equipment for the police in highly urbanized cities. I pointed out that you can't claim that any one racial group is the only one that can out gun the police. If fact conservative gun nuts are more likely going to be the ones able to take on a police force.

I do not believe that any police force should be militarized. Nor do I believe that the citizens have the right to be militarized. Until the Govt. is prepared to take the steps to pass reasonable gun legislation and demilitarize police forces, the problem is not going to go away.

[treestar]

78. That sounded like a redundancy

Not an exotic attempt to be racist.

[Demit]

80. I just wanted the poster to unpack it for me.

Because a city is urban, by definition. Lots of people, lots of commerce, by definition. I think it was the "highly" urbanized that got me. And citing it as a justification for militarizing the police? I want the poster to unpack that too.

[NaturalHigh]

47. I was thinking the same thing.

[G_j]

56. does not explain "crowd control' weaponry

(which is a growing industry, btw)

[NightWatcher]

59. and since then how many times have they needed heavy armor and MRAP tanks?

Keep it in the trunk till you need it. Don't respond to domestic disputes in a tank.

I love the cops that say they are fearful of every situation they walk into, that is why they need these weapons. If you are that scared, that you need a tank for a traffic stop, maybe you don't need to be a cop.

[stevenleser]

60. I agree. You certainly don't need them against the protesters we have seen in Ferguson.

I think the entire history of this needs to be revisited. Municipalities should examine how many times they have needed the weapons and armament brought about by the reaction to the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery.

[KittyWampus]

61. Keep it for highly trained, County or State level divisions. IF they exist at all.

And even so, a grenade launcher? Tanks?

Overkill.

[AgingAmerican]

62. That thought crossed my mind watching

last night.

[SomethingFishy]

64. You wanna arm cops like soldiers? Then train them like soldiers.

There is a fucking reason you don't give military grade hardware to civilians. And to anyone in the military a cop is nothing more than another civilian.

[stevenleser]

65. I agree. nt

[Eleanors38]

68. Nah, Lesser, it's the WOD. But the WOD is "back burner," isn't it?

It's fanciful and romantic, but some incident like the Hollywood shootout only masks the real reasons: Militarizing LEOs for the WOD was self-evident well before some Hollywood punks decided to go celeb. The only question was/is: Was the WOD itself a convenient excuse to extend central military command down to the local level, with the RICO Act and Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces. My guess is LEOs are beefed up to be a force of first response when general shit-hits-fan for far greater reasons than your shoot-out.

[stevenleser]

70. No, its all pretty much traceable back to this event.

Laws may have been passed prior to this, but little to no movement occurred to beef up the armaments of police until right after this event.

[Electric Monk]

72. Post hoc ergo propter hoc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[Eleanors38]

74. You're looking for spectaculars; the trend is much more mundane...

as was cited upstream. LEOs have a history of claiming to be outgunned, with some justification. The militarization thing is bigger, and started earlier than you indicated (with enabling legislation) in the name of the WOD. No doubt this was pushed by Bush One's WOD expansion, and by Democrats' fear of being called soft on drugs. Pretense for other motivations? I think so. But regardless, the trend was in motion for some time.

[treestar]

76. Something like that happening is a possibility and they want to be prepared for it

They'll take a media beating if it does and they aren't ready for it.

Notice how infamous murders take place in small towns, and detectives there have no experience with solving murders because there are so few, and they get called incompetent.

After 911 they had a lot of money too. The feds gave the State of Delaware so much money they bought all kinds of fancy stuff. Al Qaeda may strike Delaware too, you know!