WillCAD

Not necessarily. Most of them are anti-BAD-police, and pro-GOOD-police.

I, for example, happen to be the son of a retired cop of over 40 years of experience and stand 100% behind the police when they do the job correctly.

When they do it wrong, break the rules, or break the law they're trusted with upholding, that's when I cease to stand behind them and demand that they be punished appropriately with their violations.

TMM1982

Most people are these days

gingersnaps

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights.

Envoke this statute anytime an individual acts under color of State law, which results in a deprivation of civil rights.

GUWonder

Most people are fans of good policing -- at least as long as it doesn't hit them.

I would hope that most people are not fans of bad police actions, such as those where the police violate civil liberties of the public or otherwise fail to serve and protect in full compliance with all the laws applicable to the police.

Boggie Dog

All of my immediate family worked in law enforcement and I now supply a service to a group of federal and local LEO's. I fully support the LEO community however when they step over the line I have no issue stepping up and letting my voice be heard.

When certain groups of cops have a name for giving a person a "hard ride" while in the back of a paddy wagon I thinks its time to take a look at what's going on. There is no reason to choke a person to death while trying to take them into custody. There is no reason to shoot and kill a person armed only with a knife unless they are attacking, especially shooting them 18 times. There is no reason for cops to shoot up a small truck with two newspaper delivery people inside who showed no threat of any kind. And that is just a small example of what is happening across the country.

Police departments are looking more like an army than "Peace Officers". I think we all need to take a step back and reevaluate what we want our police forces to do. And why is it that almost every federal agency now has its own armed army? Is there really a need for that much firepower in our government agencies?

Loren Pechtel

No. Lots of people who are opposed to abuse from the police.

N830MH

Right! They are not real law enforcement & federal officers. They don't have any right to detained on those people. That's not right! I think it's time to end the TSA. End it now! They have to stop harassed with passengers. There is no reason to detain him. Leave him alone! Leave the passengers alone.

Section 107

Yes, while the Second Amendment is being protected..... a well armed citizenry is a government's worst nightmare.

Boggie Dog

I'm not sure if you are being snarky or what but I find the growing expansion of police agencies within government to be concerning.

Why does NOAA need a police force? Why does the CDC need a police force or HUD, Department of Education, or Department of Agriculture?

And now some people are in favor of arming TSA screeners. I am not one those those people!

http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...-armed-agents/

DaveBlaine

Section 107

Just pointing out that since the US government is in a constant "arms race" with its citizenry and residents on all sorts of fronts (equipment, technology, policy, etc.). The Radar Detector battle in some states and the move to encrypt all communications between public workers are classic examples. Because the people have capabilities so, too, must the gubmint keep increasing its capabilities since it can't trust the very people that grant it legitimacy.

I agree with you.

Section 107

Actually, at exactly the same time. LAPD's D Platoon (aka "SWAT") was created in response the Watts riots in the late 60's; Adam-12 started filming and aired at the same time.

As a corollary: Many episodes of Hill Street Blues (early 80's ostensibly set in Chicago) are rife with plot lines of the excessive militarization in equipment and uniforms and heavy-handed tactics of Sgt/Lt. Hunter's "(H)EATers" SWAT team - particularly the use of an armored personnel carrier to breach entrances and walls.

The controversy over militarization of law enforcement actually extends back way further than that - the US Marshals, Revenuers, FBI and other local LE organizations were criticized for using machine guns (well, the Gatling gun and successors), armored cars, and lots of military style tactics in going after bootleggers, organized crime, and just your everyday-run-of-the-mill desperados.

DaveBlaine

The Watts Riots? You mean when a black motorist was arrested for drunk-driving, a minor roadside argument escalated into a fight, and the community reacted in outrage? Surely something like that would NEVER happen today. Not in 2015.

And yes, I remember watching Hill Street Blues and Howard Hunter's guys of the Emergency Action Team. Do you remember the TV show SWAT? It's from the 1970's but also based in California.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was in response to police being "outgunned" by criminals at the time. We are lucky the prohibitive tax of $200 has not been increased since then.

But yes, the militarization of police has been going on for decades.

ubernostrum

Just in case your question wasn't rhetorical...

Law enforcement at the federal level has always been kind of a random patchwork, and the thing that's actually a recent invention is the idea that there should or will be only one single "federal police force" handling all federal law enforcement.

There are several reasons for this, ranging from the historical reluctance of Congress to authorize a general-purpose federal law enforcement agency (for a large chunk of US history, instead they'd simply tack additional duties onto some existing agency's charter; this is how the Secret Service -- created to fight counterfeiting -- ended up being Presidential bodyguards) to the structure of the agencies themselves, their history and the nature of their duties. For example, consider the national parks: they have their own police force, and for the most part it doesn't make sense to require them to borrow people from the FBI for that (and of course there's historical clutter, too, as the park police date back to the George Washington administration).

And if you think all that stuff is weird, just wait until you learn that NOAA has a commissioned officer corps too!

(that one's because their predecessor agencies used to lend people to the military, and they needed to be commissioned to bring them under prisoner-of-war rules if captured on/near a battlefield; otherwise they could simply be executed on the spot as spies)