TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:I honestly could give a hoot for stars and braid and all that garnish. If they think that's what they need to distinguish rank and command respect, I don't really care about that. I'm MUCH more worried about the militarization of tactics and equipment, the proliferation of alphabet agency SWAT teams, and the increased use of no-knock dynamic entry to serve simple warrants for failure to return a library book on time.

The thing is, the more militarized the state gets, the more I am inclined to think it is illegitimate and to stop caring about or paying attention to their laws.

The wanting to look military is merely a symptom of the disease. I object to it all.

If that's what Obama said, then it looks like he's planning the increase police militarization. Otherwise I'd have to believe that out of all the things Obama has said and done, this is the one thing he's telling the truth about.

Whatever Obama voices you know he means the opposite.

He can't help himself- He's a megalomaniacal liar

I thought Clinton was a criminal, but Obama makes Clinton look like an angel...

Keith B wrote:
Well, they have ranks just like the military, so what would you suggest the Sargent's and other's wear? Would you suggest the Chief wear a feather head dress?

How about a suit and tie? that's what the police chief wears where I live.

I fully approve of officers wearing cameras. The more any activities can be documented, the better for both the officer and the citizen. I also don't believe that most police departments need military gear. Even if their motivations are not nefarious, that is a big cost to the taxpayer just in the maintenance and up keep, even when equipment is donated. Obviously that is an uninformed opinion, but it seems every police department has a decked out SWAT team. I don't see how the taxpayers are getting their money's worth in many of these cases.
That being said, it is really hard for me not to be completely skeptical of the Federal government. The Feds were all busy flooding local departments with military surplus gear a couple of years ago. It seems to me that just about the time team Obama started getting some push back from local sheriffs regarding his threatened executive actions concerning gun control, their opinions on militarized local police forces changed. At the end of the day, Obama would like to nationalize all police departments, it is just a hard nut for him to crack. Every time El Presidente makes an announcement I find myself waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I think those convicted of violent crimes, drug trafficking, sexual crimes and many other felonies should have to wear cameras too.

The camera issue is separate from the militarization issue.

I understand the intent of the "cops have to wear cameras to keep them honest" crowd, but what is good for one is good for the other. Make it a condition of parole forever. Caught without your felon camera, go back to the slammer.

anygunanywhere wrote:I think those convicted of violent crimes, drug trafficking, sexual crimes and many other felonies should have to wear cameras too.
The camera issue is separate from the militarization issue.
I understand the intent of the "cops have to wear cameras to keep them honest" crowd, but what is good for one is good for the other. Make it a condition of parole forever. Caught without your felon camera, go back to the slammer.

I'm fine with that as long as they're on probation or otherwise still being punished. If you more long lasting punishment beyond never being able to get a real job again (which contributes to the problem), I'm not sure that I'm game. Alternately, we might just go ahead and ship all the felons off to some foreign country, which again, would might be fine, but we're sure to round up some other people in the process....

LEO cameras are an excellent idea.. The protect good officers. They protect the public. Personally, they make me relax. They'd make it a lot easier for a jury to sort out what actually happened and they might take make that mess in Ferguson a lot less subjective.

I believe LEOs need military weapons in some circumstances. Like very very few circumstances.. I'd trade the camera issue for continued access to that sort of hardware, as the accountability is black and white. I want to see less frequent use of that hardware and less frequent use of military style tactics (no-knock warrants on minor issues)..

I understand the draw of military class weapons and hardware.. heck, who on this forum doesn't? One of the basic tenants of our government is that we can't use the military against our own citizens... We're just passing the hardware to non-military hands and the affect is the same.. perhaps worse...

cb1000rider wrote: One of the basic tenants of our government is that we can't use the military against our own citizens...

Don't be so certain. Patriot Act 1 and 2 and the NDAA pretty much gutted Posse Comitatus. Besides, with all the ignoring of the Constitution, all other laws are small game for tyrants.

Darn Democrats and their Patriot Act.

cb1000rider wrote:Darn Democrats and their Patriot Act.

Ummm….Patriot Act 1 was George W Bush's watch.

Hence the

cb1000rider wrote:Hence the

Aah yes. OK. I did not catch the body language.

cb1000rider wrote:I believe LEOs need military weapons in some circumstances.

I can accept that; give them all the 1917 Enfields and S&W Model 10s they want. Just as long as they're wearing cameras at all times.

KD5NRH wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I believe LEOs need military weapons in some circumstances.

I can accept that; give them all the 1917 Enfields and S&W Model 10s they want. Just as long as they're wearing cameras at all times.

That is funny right there.

KD5NRH wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:I believe LEOs need military weapons in some circumstances.

I can accept that; give them all the 1917 Enfields and S&W Model 10s they want. Just as long as they're wearing cameras at all times.

Is this the body camera that goes along with those guns?