Words of Wisdom from this Retired Marine Colonel

[Tgace]

Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.

******** opinion based on ignorance on the subject. So if a anonymous person calls my desk phone stating "Joe Blow" is dealing Heroin from his house means I shouldn't look into it...because I don't know where the info came from?

The idea that locals (like me) have access to NSA files is pure fantasy.

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Sa...e-militarization-and-one-cops-humble-opinion/

The most vitriolic commentary regarding “militarization” is based on deeply flawed thinking by emotional people who tend to believe everything they read. These are the hardcore believers who cannot be bothered to verify the facts reported by their favorite authors. People who read only those sources they agree with (and the sources those sources agree with) can be easily led down a false intellectual path. That’s how otherwise normal people end up believing with all their heart that their local police officer is an agent of the New World Order, the U.N., or President Obama’s shadowy “National Defense Force.”

 

[jks9199]

The DEA are not local police. If a DEA agent calls me and states he has information that a person in my jurisdiction is moving kilos of Coke, of course Im going to investigate that. Am I supposed to grill him for his sources now?

Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.

I agree, to a point. If a DEA agent gives me intel, I want to know enough about his source that I feel safe acting on the info. Maybe my view is tainted by experience with federal agencies... but I don't trust their say-so without some supporting information. Hell... I want some details from our own narcs before I make a stop. I don't need the CI's name, I don't need too much -- but before I run on the info, I want something to let me know it's valid and worth running on. I've seen too much crap come from CIs and from "friendly feds" to trust it automatically.

But, at the same time, if a fellow LEO -- whether state, local, or fed -- gives me info, it does start at a higher level of credibility than if it's just someone on the street or an anonymous tip.

And investigate is not the same as make an arrest or even do a search.

 

[Tgace]

I agree, to a point. If a DEA agent gives me intel, I want to know enough about his source that I feel safe acting on the info. Maybe my view is tainted by experience with federal agencies... but I don't trust their say-so without some supporting information. Hell... I want some details from our own narcs before I make a stop. I don't need the CIs name, I don't need too much -- but before I run on the info, I want something to let me know it's valid.

Acting on info and opening an investigation are two entirely different things....the story quoted makes a tenuous connection from the NSA to the DEA to Locals via the DEA giving tips to locals based on their data sources to initiate investigations. This also assumes that the DEA agents know that the data they get back through their database came from NSA sources. An unproven assumption. Do YOU "really" know the ultimate data source of any "hits" you get via an NCIC check JK?

Unless my case depends on that data to win in court it's just data like it would be from any other source. What matters is if MY investigation and case was proper and constitutional. If I see "Joe Blow" make a sale on a street corner and build my own case...or an agent calls me and tells me to take a look at "Joe Blow" the end result in either case is entirely Constitutional from my end. I didn't read anywhere that locals were busting down doors based solely on a DEA tip.

Of course what any of this has to do with Bearcats and militarization has gone over my head.....

 

[granfire]

I don't know why this wasn't just kept in this thread Suk...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...e-land-of-SWAT/page9?highlight=militarization

Why did the cops in the early 1900's have this?

View attachment 18236

Why did the police have armored cars as far back as the 1940's?

View attachment 18237

Does anyone even know what a Bearcat is? It's an armored car...it has no "main gun"...it has no coaxial...it's not a tank.

What do we need one for? Well how would you like to deal with (for example) a gunman who just killed four people who is holed up in a basement taking shots at you? Having an armored vehicle available and some body armor to do what we are paid to do is asking too much? Better I or one of my co-workers catch a bullet?

My team doesn't own one...too expensive...but our Sheriffs dept has one if we need it and Im glad they do. It's far easier to watch a SWAT situation on TV and imagine what YOU would do than it is walking up to the location of a barricaded gunman on foot.

Ive said it before..and I guess I have to say it again...it's not gear that "militarizes" police. Its their action with or without the gear. If I kick down your door and storm your house in street clothes and a revolver it's not legally different than if Im wearing a helmet and carrying a subgun. The overkill stories being bandied about are ALL about police leadership decision making. The trappings are just a diversion from the fact that storming an office building for wood importation records would be overkill if it was done by uniformed patrolmen.

If anyone it truly interested in the roots of SWAT teams "gearing up" (instead of just yelling "militarization!!" and posting links) needs to look into the after action analysis of the Mumbai attack and police preparation for mass shooting attacks.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...=display_arch&article_id=1945&issue_id=112009

even though "all yall" seem to have forgotten Mumbai, that attack (in conjunction with domestic mass shootings) plays a LARGE role in US police forces trying to prepare themselves to deal with such situations. As the Bank of America incident illustrated:

Two domestic bank robbers outgunned cops with nothing but pistols and shotguns. What would 4 dedicated attackers with AK's be able to do in your Town/City with officers restricted to Barney Fife equipment?

This is not to say that cops should be walking the streets CARRYING rifles..and they really don't, they are just kept in cars in case of need...or doing routine patrol in Bearcats. But we need to balance preparedness with departmental policies of use. Which is the REAL issue here IMO....if you have issue with what your cops have then the real thing to accomplish is to sit down and hammer out policy, NOT eliminate hardware that could possibly save your life in an emergency.

Hmm...I guess I am pretty strange...but having seen police patrol FRA international airport with sub-machine guns on their hips....leftovers from the 'good old days' of battling it out with the RAF. Not Suke's guys...but the terrorist group of the 70s...yep, they found themselves outgunned a few times, having the body count to show for it back then...

 

[ballen0351]

Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.

How is starting an investigation a violation of the constitution?

 

[granfire]

How is starting an investigation a violation of the constitution?

you hurt their feelings and make them feel bad about themselves...I am sure it's in the 4rth somewhere.



of course:
</sarcasm>

 

[Tgace]

Armchair Constitutional lawyers......

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

How is starting an investigation a violation of the constitution?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805

A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.
Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.
The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.
"I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.
"It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."

The Feds train their agents to feed data to local sources and "launder" the source so their "powerful too" can remain secret.

The two senior DEA officials, who spoke on behalf of the agency but only on condition of anonymity, said the process is kept secret to protect sources and investigative methods. "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day," one official said. "It's decades old, a bedrock concept."
A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.
"It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.

Experts who look at this practice see it as gaming the system. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, easily sidestepped through secrecy.

"That's outrageous," said Tampa attorney James Felman, a vice chairman of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association. "It strikes me as indefensible."
Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey defense lawyer, said any systematic government effort to conceal the circumstances under which cases begin "would not only be alarming but pretty blatantly unconstitutional."
Lustberg and others said the government's use of the SOD program skirts established court procedures by which judges privately examine sensitive information, such as an informant's identity or classified evidence, to determine whether the information is relevant to the defense.
"You can't game the system," said former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. "You can't create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases. If you don't draw the line here, where do you draw it?"
Some lawyers say there can be legitimate reasons for not revealing sources. Robert Spelke, a former prosecutor who spent seven years as a senior DEA lawyer, said some sources are classified. But he also said there are few reasons why unclassified evidence should be concealed at trial.
"It's a balancing act, and they've doing it this way for years," Spelke said. "Do I think it's a good way to do it? No, because now that I'm a defense lawyer, I see how difficult it is to challenge."

Even this article is a pile a ****. The whole second part equivocated and backtracked based on the opinions coming from the very agencies have very recently been proven to have lied to us. The bottom line is that this data is going to any cop who wants it. All of the data is being gathered in an illegal warrantless Constitution killing search mission that makes the US no better than East Germany. But this is what is now considered acceptable by cops, feds, and other agents in charge of "public safety". And I'm sure there are a lot of cops who will look at all of this and say, "this is wrong, this is violating the citizens rights," but for everyone of those guys, there will be a dozen others who will simply pick up the pay check and look the other way.

The culture of limited government, of limiting the force the government can exert, of limiting it's power, is slowly been ground away.

 

[ballen0351]

Even this article is a pile a ****. The whole second part equivocated and backtracked based on the opinions coming from the very agencies have very recently been proven to have lied to us. The bottom line is that this data is going to any cop who wants it.

What data? What data can I get that you disagree with?

All of the data is being gathered in an illegal warrantless Constitution killing search mission that makes the US no better than East Germany. But this is what is now considered acceptable by cops, feds, and other agents in charge of "public safety". And I'm sure there are a lot of cops who will look at all of this and say, "this is wrong, this is violating the citizens rights," but for everyone of those guys, there will be a dozen others who will simply pick up the pay check and look the other way.

even if the Feds call and tell me bob smith from 123 main st is selling 3 kilos of coke every Tuesday I cant just go kick in his door. I still investigate the info to verify its correct and then need to get a signed warrant. Im not sure what you think is happening? Secondly I was on a federal drug task force and I never saw any of the above your saying is going on. I cant just access your phone records, track your phone, or mine any data thats not generally available to anyone else with out warrants or court orders. Maybe someone out there can but I dont know them and the normal everyday officers on the streets dont have access.

The culture of limited government, of limiting the force the government can exert, of limiting it's power, is slowly been ground away.

I dont disagree with that but I think your exaggerating the claims

 

[Tgace]

There's no point in discussing this with him anymore...he knows what he thinks he knows based on sources that support his preconceptions. People with firsthand information are trumped by internet articles in this world....

"This data is going to any cop who wants it"...right...proof?

What do you know about cops? What do you have to support those assumptions?

You need to step away from the internet for a while.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't disagree with that but I think your exaggerating the claims

Honestly, this is what I would expect people who draw a paycheck from the government to say. Unconsciously, they know the system is out of control, but their livelihood is dependent upon serving it. What I think people need to realize is that this system will betray you in the end. You'll get paid now, but it will come at the expense of freedom in the future. You'll get promises of retirement and pensions now, but those will get confiscated and you'll be paid in inflated dollars on whatever you do collect in the future. You can get some undue respect now for wearing a uniform now, but in the future anyone who still believes in freedom is going to see you as the agent who helped take that away. I know this sounds harsh, but I'm getting really tired of all the rationalization and dissembling on the part of people in the enforcer class. All governments who follow the path that the US government is following right now basically end the same way. It's a well established historical cycle.

 

[Makalakumu]

You need to step away from the internet for a while.

I went to the store this morning and purchased some food to cook breakfast for my family. Along the way, I took a phone call and sold some old kid stuff and will take some (evil) cash later this afternoon. If you've been following the NSA story that Greenwald has been publishing, you know that the government collected all of that data. They track my cell phone's location. They record every conversation. They collect electronic banking information. And now we find out that they've been trickling this information down to the local arms of the enforcer class for years. And now we find out that the government has been working with all of the big tech companies to build backdoors into all of their operating systems so they can gobble up all of your private computer data. And now we find out that the government is building giant data collection points in Utah and other places around the country where they can collect information on a worldwide scale.

For those of you who think I'm exaggerating, I think you better get your mind around all of this. A few years ago, if I would have typed that the government was doing all this, the same people who are screaming exaggeration now would be howling "conspiracy theory" and "nutter" and "paranoid".

All this really shows is a lack of imagination and a refusal to look at the truth of the situation. If cops don't have a version of Google where they can type in your name and keywords and find anything out about you that they want, it's coming. That will be the future. This country has a larger prison population than Communist China. This country arrests 1 in 25 of it's citizens. This country has hundreds and thousands of pages of laws and there is no way to know this all. This information collection system the government has set up will turn everyone into a potential criminal. The system is out of control and I think people on the outside of it can see where it's going. For example, in the near future, if I decide to go out with my buddies after a night of jujutsu, the cops are going to know that I went to a bar and that I spent an hour and a half there. Some cop is going to get a little red flag on their screen and potentially be able to come in and collect some revenue.

This is what America bought when it decided to trade freedom for security. Enjoy.

 

[ballen0351]

Honestly, this is what I would expect people who draw a paycheck from the government to say. Unconsciously, they know the system is out of control, but their livelihood is dependent upon serving it. What I think people need to realize is that this system will betray you in the end. You'll get paid now, but it will come at the expense of freedom in the future. You'll get promises of retirement and pensions now, but those will get confiscated and you'll be paid in inflated dollars on whatever you do collect in the future. You can get some undue respect now for wearing a uniform now, but in the future anyone who still believes in freedom is going to see you as the agent who helped take that away. I know this sounds harsh, but I'm getting really tired of all the rationalization and dissembling on the part of people in the enforcer class. All governments who follow the path that the US government is following right now basically end the same way. It's a well established historical cycle.

First my respect was earned and it does not come from a uniform. People know me and respect me because I'm fair and honest to them. I treat them with respect until they show me they don't deserve it. So you can shove the unearned respect comment where the sun don't shine.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the rest of my post. What data do I have access to that you disagree with?

 

[Makalakumu]

First my respect was earned and it does not come from a uniform. People know me and respect me because I'm fair and honest to them. I treat them with respect until they show me they don't deserve it. So you can shove the unearned respect comment where the sun don't shine.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the rest of my post. What data do I have access to that you disagree with?

I'm glad you earn respect the old fashioned way, but from the outside looking in, there is a culture of worship that has developed around government "servants" that truly is undue.

As far as the data you have access to...how about all of it. I don't think governments should keep any records on citizens, much less be able to search them.

 

[ballen0351]

I'm glad you earn respect the old fashioned way, but from the outside looking in, there is a culture of worship that has developed around government "servants" that truly is undue.

As far as the data you have access to...how about all of it. I don't think governments should keep any records on citizens, much less be able to search them.

Like what? Driving records and criminal records? That's about all I can access without a court order and even that data is audited and if I'm found to not have a reason to request that info I can be fired or arrested

 

[Makalakumu]

Like what? Driving records and criminal records? That's about all I can access without a court order and even that data is audited and if I'm found to not have a reason to request that info I can be fired or arrested

The government shouldn't have anyone's data. There is no real pressure that curbs abuse or curbs the collection of increasing amounts.

I would be more comfortable with a privatized police force because then you'd have market pressure to use people's data justly. If a business is perceived to have used data improperly, they can be sued and you can stop paying for their service.

But, hey, that's just another issue with socialism. Lol.

 

[oftheherd1]

...

I think the truth can be summed up in the recent Gaurdian article where Glen Grenwald reports on just how fast local police agencies gobbled up the NSA data they were fed. There is literally no respect for American traditions anymore. The Constitution might as well be TP.

How can any rational person think the NSA is feeding all its secret, make that top secret, information to lowly local police. It is a very sad fact of life that there are too many careless people, much less the few like Snowden, to keep secrets if you have thousands of cops across the land with that information. Really?

The DEA are not local police. If a DEA agent calls me and states he has information that a person in my jurisdiction is moving kilos of Coke, of course Im going to investigate that. Am I supposed to grill him for his sources now?

Note he said "he" will investigate. If he makes a case, he may attempt to keep the source of the information from the defendant to protect an informant. But he may not be successful. If a judge orders the source be revealed, the prosecution as only two options, tell the local cop to reveal his source (under oath), or drop the charges. That's the way it works everywhere I know of, but maybe where you are it is different?

Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.

You know, there are a lot of cops in this country; federal civilian, federal military, state and local. I don't know the exact number. But you will always get a few bad apples. Most however, even those who might wish they could do it otherwise when the see a really bad lawbreaker get off, are required to follow the constitution and the orders of the courts where they have jurisdiction. Again, I can't account for where you live since I don't live there.

Honestly, this is what I would expect people who draw a paycheck from the government to say. Unconsciously, they know the system is out of control, but their livelihood is dependent upon serving it. What I think people need to realize is that this system will betray you in the end. You'll get paid now, but it will come at the expense of freedom in the future. going to see you as You'll get promises of retirement and pensions now, but those will get confiscated and you'll be paid in inflated dollars on whatever you do collect in the future. You can get some undue respect now for wearing a uniform now, but in the future anyone who still believes in freedom isthe agent who helped take that away. I know this sounds harsh, but I'm getting really tired of all the rationalization and dissembling on the part of people in the enforcer class. All governments who follow the path that the US government is following right now basically end the same way. It's a well established historical cycle.

Where do you get this great insight into the future? And your use of the words "undue respect" has already been commented on above. But personally I think you should apologize to other police, as whether or not you intended it so, you have insulted a lot of good policemen.

I went to the store this morning and purchased some food to cook breakfast for my family. Along the way, I took a phone call and sold some old kid stuff and will take some (evil) cash later this afternoon. If you've been following the NSA story that Greenwald has been publishing, you know that the government collected all of that data. They track my cell phone's location. They record every conversation. They collect electronic banking information. And now we find out that they've been trickling this information down to the local arms of the enforcer class for years. And now we find out that the government has been working with all of the big tech companies to build backdoors into all of their operating systems so they can gobble up all of your private computer data. And now we find out that the government is building giant data collection points in Utah and other places around the country where they can collect information on a worldwide scale.

First, that is rather old news, and has been duly reported. But it had more to do with back doors to encryption, not operating systems. Operating systems are public knowledge.

For those of you who think I'm exaggerating, I think you better get your mind around all of this. A few years ago, if I would have typed that the government was doing all this, the same people who are screaming exaggeration now would be howling "conspiracy theory" and "nutter" and "paranoid".

Sorry, I still would.

All this really shows is a lack of imagination and a refusal to look at the truth of the situation. If cops don't have a version of Google where they can type in your name and keywords and find anything out about you that they want, it's coming.

How do you suppose they would keep that secret? Or are you only talking about certain agencies that have sufficient clearances to get access?

That will be the future. This country has a larger prison population than Communist China.

Could that have anything to do with a difference in culture, or perhaps the selling of body parts?

This country arrests 1 in 25 of it's citizens. This country has hundreds and thousands of pages of laws and there is no way to know this all. This information collection system the government has set up will turn everyone into a potential criminal. The system is out of control and I think people on the outside of it can see where it's going. For example, in the near future, if I decide to go out with my buddies after a night of jujutsu, the cops are going to know that I went to a bar and that I spent an hour and a half there. Some cop is going to get a little red flag on their screen and potentially be able to come in and collect some revenue.

I hope I am never so important as to have to worry about that.

This is what America bought when it decided to trade freedom for security. Enjoy.

I'm glad you earn respect the old fashioned way, but from the outside looking in, there is a culture of worship that has developed around government "servants" that truly is undue.

As far as the data you have access to...how about all of it. I don't think governments should keep any records on citizens, much less be able to search them.

Well, now you are attacking people like me. I am a government servant. I work for the federal government. But I am happy to let you know, no one worships me.

I do think I have respect from people where I work. Many people I know, who have nothing to do with where I work, seem not to disrespect me because I work for the government. But of course, there are people like you. Especially on Capitol Hill.

You can read in newspapers and federal reports that there are people who don't deserve respect. But I truly believe they are in a very small minority.

As to keeping records on its citizens, I agree that it can be carried to a dangerous extreme. But do you think it wrong for a cop to be able to learn that someone he has just stopped as a suspect for something has a record of assaulting police any time he is stopped? How about if a suspect meets a description of a murder suspect, would it be worthwhile knowing he has been in and out of prison for violent assaults? Would you like your descendants to know anything about you from public records?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, for whatever reason they may have it. But I really think you are ill informed in some of your opinions.

 

[ballen0351]

The government shouldn't have anyone's data. There is no real pressure that curbs abuse or curbs the collection of increasing amounts.

What data your still not telling me what data you think I have or can access.

I would be more comfortable with a privatized police force because then you'd have market pressure to use people's data justly. If a business is perceived to have used data improperly, they can be sued and you can stop paying for their service.

Problem is the people that use our services the most cant afford them. We spend more time in the poor areas then we ever do in the rich areas. And what happens when someone becomes a victim of a crime thats behind on their police payments?

 

[oftheherd1]

...

Problem is the people that use our services the most cant afford them. We spend more time in the poor areas then we ever do in the rich areas. And what happens when someone becomes a victim of a crime thats behind on their police payments?

Quite so. more importantly, I think a check might reveal more individual police, police departments, and municipalities are sued that big corporations.

 

[Makalakumu]

What data your still not telling me what data you think I have or can access.

Problem is the people that use our services the most cant afford them. We spend more time in the poor areas then we ever do in the rich areas. And what happens when someone becomes a victim of a crime thats behind on their police payments?

The reason they can't afford them is because they are socialized. There is no way 90% of the laws we have now get enforced if people have to directly pay for the service. Private police in poor areas would be very different than what exists now.

And who would pay for this service anyway? Imagine a companu advertising crime that clearance rates and response times that exist in modern metro areas now? Not going to happen. The market would serve people better and more fairly.