US police definitely has to stop seeing itself as another form of military. Here in LA I see billboard ads for police recruitment with some super fit people and words like "Courage" and others. Pretty much the same style as the Marines ads. They never mention "Service" or "Peace". Seems they want to attract wannabe soldiers.
I agree with you but it could also get much worst... for example if Soros' plan to federalize US police[1] becomes a reality, I think that it would get worst. But at least, Obama banned some military equipment sales to police[2].
I think that citizens should be allowed to own whatever police officers are allowed to use without warrants.
The memos supposedly "supporting" this idea are not about an effort to "federalize US police", but efforts to implement different common federal standards than those currently applied through existing federal funding streams. To the extent the application of federal standards through access to federal funding streams is "federalization" of the recipient forces (I probably wouldn't describe it that way, but there's a perspective from which it makes some sense), that's already been done, the recommendation is to change the specific policies applied through the existing federalization.
I don't think either of those documents says that Soros wants to federalize US police. Soros is a progressive, and progressives want to limit the power of police, and limit the militarization of police forces. I believe Soros is on board with both of those things.
If I sent a letter to the secretary of state or my own representatives in govt asking for something, like say changing our govts investigation about Syria, you could claim that I somehow influenced the govt. Of course Soros is really rich and could convince people to do things. But HRC is really rich too.
With his "letter", he also sent millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton's campaign... but I get your point (ie: of course you don't necessarily need money to influence)
I don't think it's so bad on the surface. Problems with policing is overwhelmingly due to lack of accountability on such local levels. Federalization would add a ton of uniformity and oversight that doesn't exist today.
As opposed to what? I mean, I like the idea of marketing to a peacenik, community minded, compassionate, etc person, but those are the least likely people to get a tough and sometimes shitty job where your life is on the line and you deal with humanity's worst people often at their worst. The types you are talking about would fall into social and charitable work. Personally, I wouldn't last a day as a cop.
A lot of that "honor" marketing is to attract the kinds of people who would work those jobs. These strategies work on low educated types or types who are comfortable with shooting, fighting, etc or types who just want well paid public-sector pension jobs and will deal with it.
That said, of course there are lots of good cops out there who don't necessarily buy into the macho stuff, but at the end of the day, you better be prepared to do violence. How comfortable would a liberal guy who never had been in a fight be as a cop? Or a 100lbs woman? Or someone who locks up under pressure? Or someone who is a bookworm and has zero physical skills? You can't just wish for society's finest to take a job that you and I would never do. I don't see you quitting your cush white collar job to reform the police department.
Commander William Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
This is extremely dangerous tech in the hands of any law enforcement or government agency. We've already seen multiple cases of police in the US destroying video evidence, disabling dashcams, and deleting videos from people's cell phones. Given the ability to jam people's cellular signal it's all but certain it will be misused to cover up wrongdoing.
Technology like this will also undoubtedly be used to disrupt and harass activists and protesters.
And really, what risk is there for law enforcement in using this stuff? If they get caught, maybe a few cases get thrown out but as it stands no one is likely to go to jail for illegal surveillance.
"For geo-locating and tracking purposes the UMTS target phone is 'pushed' onto the GSM-XPZ cell and then placed into blind call mode." [1]
Oh, yeah, of course blind call mode.... wait, what?
Does anyone have more information on "blind call mode"? It sounds like a standard feature of some devices, perhaps where the phone actively transmits as if in a call, but without the user knowing. I definitely don't want a device that will help someone spy on me...
Also it's great that people are beginning to question the values of law enforcement, but don't forget too that good old fashioned criminals will have this tech too. Sometimes, the two will be the same entity.
I'm not seeing anything on page 7 that details "blind call mode" and only one mention of "blind call mode" in the document-- Do you have any further reading on this?
Page 7 doesn't detail how it works, but does seem to describe what it does. From cell base station creates a connection to a target cell phone without the user of the cell phone being aware. Can then use RF direction finding to identify location of cell phone. Obviously multiple base stations required to be more accurate.
Serious follow up question: what part of the legal code allows this? Are there exceptions written into laws for the police? Or is that it's illegal but would never be prosecuted?
Here in the UK there are exceptions written into the law. For example, here's the speed limit exception [0]. If the government want to give the police new powers contrary to existing laws they will pass a bill making amendments to the old laws.
dude i have no clue, ill ask my friend in law school and see if she knows anything about it.. perhaps its because they are working as agents of the state, which allows them to break the rules for some odd reason / state wont prosecute them for it.
Face it, without specific laws blocking the use of military grade hardware by the police we will end up with a police state. First came over militarization of SWAT teams to the same with nearly all police. They even have tracked military vehicles in some jurisdiction as well as military transports never designed for road use (one of my neighboring counties has a tank and was ridiculed over it after someone put a training video to death metal; search for Doraville tank)
I find the focus on "military grade hardware" to be a red herring in the police conduct issue. In many cases, the hardware being discussed (tracked vehicles? okay, I guess they're good in mud?) have nothing to do with offensive capabilities, and are quite often defensive. (Armored vehicles).
If anything, the better defended our cops are, the less excuse they have to use lethal force. If a cop knew his life was never in danger, he would have almost no reason to use lethal force.
In many cases, this hardware's already built, it's built to survive a lot tougher duty than the police put it through, and it makes no sense to me why they wouldn't use it.
In many cases, this hardware's already built, it's built to survive a lot tougher duty than the police put it through, and it makes no sense to me why they wouldn't use it.
Because vehicles don't maintain themselves. For example, Redmond, WA has an armored personnel carrier. I assume, without knowing, that it was a gifted leftover. But the tires alone are outrageously expensive (>$1000 or more per, but don't quote me) and they don't last very long. And it's my understanding that something like an APC is like an RV: all stuff rattling around, something always needs work. I have seen that thing out and about a total of once, at the park for "bring the kids to see fire trucks and stuff" day. As a former professional auto mechanic, I look at that thing and see nothing but constant work, like painting the Golden Gate Bridge.
So even though the vehicle might have been of no cost to the city, you're not going to find parts at AutoZone (they might carry air and oil filter for it, if the engine is based on something used elsewhere). Your mechanic has to go to training to figure out how to work on it. If you actually use the thing, now you need at least another part-time mechanic because your other guy now diverts time to work on the APC (and he's the only one trained to do it). I also assume that if you need an APC, you really need it now, so it must be maintained to a state of "ready to roll" at all times.
In conclusion, I can see a lot of this "free" stuff turning into money pits.
> If anything, the better defended our cops are, the less excuse they have to use lethal force. If a cop knew his life was never in danger, he would have almost no reason to use lethal force.
On what grounds are you making this claim? There are countless families of slain, unarmed citizens shot by police who would say otherwise.
>In many cases, the hardware being discussed (tracked vehicles? okay, I guess they're good in mud?) have nothing to do with offensive capabilities, and are quite often defensive. (Armored vehicles).
The problem, in my eyes, is that they want to appear as a military. They dress like soldiers, and now they have soldiers equipment. This reenforces the perverse wanna-be soldier attitude so many cops have now. It tells them that that mindset is ok, and projects it to the communities they're supposed to be serving.
Beyond that, maybe giving them more an more defensive capabilities is a bad idea because it allows them to be comfortable as they continue to escalate tension with, and levels of force against, the communities they operate in. Perhaps things would operate a little better if both sides had a healthy respect for each other, instead of one siding being armed to the teeth and knowing they can just continue to use force until they've won. Police need to remember that they're servants, not hired guns.
And that is an absolutely fair point. Police departments will need to evaluate the cost/benefit of any equipment they use. (And damage that equipment can cause to roadways also factors in as well.)
Apparently SkyMall & Popular Science conditioned me to believe that all hidden cameras are obviously hidden cameras. The realism of the concealments in this document was sort of jarring.
Lots of dangerous stuff here. But the camera systems are mostly available on the internet already? Except they've painted it all black. Anybody can make a dyi surveillance kit just shopping on Amazon.
