Originally Posted by
studentff
IMO there is a serious mentality problem pervading much of our law-enforcement community which has been aggravated by terms like "war on drugs" and aggravated further by the checkpoint, police-state, anything-for-security philosophy touted by the Federal government since 9/11. TSA turning citizens with large amounts of legal cash over to LEOs for possible/probable seizure of their cash is just one small example of the problem. A very insightful poster in another FT discussion a while back pointed out that the root of the problem was when police stopped being "peace officers" and started being "law-enforcement officers."
I agree, although I'd attribute the timing to the point where they became quasi-military forces (SWAT teams and the like). In some police departments, there is a huge amount of gear that used to be reserved for the military - even the LAPD is using "drone" aircraft now to spy - er - surveill people & groups. Likewise, when it became commonplace to allow police to lie and break the law themselves in order to conduct a sting/entrap people, that added to the change (yes, I understand that there may be certain times where deception is legit, but I put most "stings" into the "entrapment" category).
I have no problem with training the police to fight crime, but I draw the line at "shows of force" like Amtrak police routinely do at Union Station in DC (dogs, semi-automatic weapons, body armor, riot masks, etc). Once upon a time children were trained that the police were friends and officers were to be trusted. With today's "anything to keep control" attitude amongst many (note to the Sgt, I'm saying "many" - not "all"), a citizen has to look at an officer with a certain level of suspicion. The Maryland case of infiltrating, gathering intelligence, and putting the people who were observed on the Watch List as possible terrorists is a prime example of going too far.
Mayberry left the station a long time ago.