Last week President Obama announced changes to the 1033 program that transfers surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies. These new rules do not end this valuable program but rather restrict the transfer of certain technologies. Concurrently, there was a call for police to soften their image.
To be sure, law enforcement is an inherently dangerous profession. Consequently, body armor is a critical piece of equipment. According to the National Institute of Justice, over 3,000 lives have been saved by body armor since they were introduced in the 1970s. But the adoption of armor isn’t the only thing that’s been going on. The very image of many Police has transformed.
Over the past 20 years or so, LEOs have begun to wear more comfortable clothing than the standard long sleeve shirt, tie and low quarters commonly associated with policing. Who can blame them? Not many people wear a suit and tie to work anymore. Increased comfort equates to increased situational awareness and productivity. The requirement is valid and it’s as much a product of supply as it is demand. As one of my friends in LE pointed out, they are getting gear that was originally designed for the military. We may know some of the reasons behind this.
During that same period, the creation of tactical teams literally exploded and officers assigned to those organizations adopted military style clothing and equipment which is quite appropriate for the mission. Eventually, as crime in America transformed, the lines between specialized units and patrol cops began to blur and along with it, the adoption of tactical-style uniforms and equipment by patrolmen. Regardless of whether the gear is actually required by everyone, many are using it, and it is saving lives and improving the quality of life for LEOs. Some of it may be imdustry pushing the “easy” button and offering LE the same designs it created for the military but a lot of it is officers wanting to look the part.
Lately, there has been a great deal of criticism directed at the Law Enforcement profession, accusing them of “militarization”. For some, dressing in tactical clothing is used for the purpose of intimidation. Others want the latest and greatest kit, emulating what they see SWAT wear and the military use on the battlefield. Unfortunately, as good intentioned as they may be, both of these groups play right into the hands of their very vocal detractors who would prefer a return to the days of “Officer Friendly” with his tie and bus driver cap.
The answer isn’t outfitting our Police in “Adam 12”-style uniforms, but wearing camouflage or even Black versions of military uniforms isn’t sustainable either. Not in this climate. Instead, I’d like to offer an alternative.
I am challenging the tactical industry to create new clothing and equipment for Law Enforcement. I recommend new styles of armor and uniforms that integrate even more effective life protecting features. In fact, as they are purpose built for policing, they could be even better than what they have available today. Much of this will be camouflage, but not the kind you’re thinking of. It’s about making features blend in. The trick is to identify LE in a positive way, yet instill a feeling of trust in the public; to soften the edges of a hard target. Some of the answers may well lie in the adoption of new color schemes. Others may be in how armor and belt mounted gear are integrated. Particularly, new camera technologies as well as GPS and communications. Additionally, there may well be ways to protect the head without looking like a military helmet.
In the same breath, I call upon the Department of Justice to offer research grants for industry to incentivize them to create these new items. I’d also like to see grants to local agencies who wish to adopt new equipment. It’s time for industry to introduce soft power alternatives for equipping law enforcement officers but they must provide the same or better comfort and protection for our police. Functionality is key, but there’s nothing wrong with looking good while you’re doing your job.
So much for the “Police State” takeover theory.
Except we still have the war on drugs and surveillance, so there is still a lot of work to do. The police state will be narrowly averted thanks in no small part to critics.
+1
One simple step we could take which would help properly delineate police from the military would be banning them from wearing camouflage uniforms period. I don’t care if they want to wear ACU-style cuts of uniforms, especially SWAT teams, but in your everyday policing, even SWAT teams making dynamic entries, don’t really need camo.
Solid blue, gray, black, green, etc should work just find. It cracks me up (in a sad sort of way) when I see a gaggle of cops roaming the streets of Boston head to toe in Multicam.
Agreed, LE in general do not need camouflage uniforms. A solid colored uniform will work just fine for them. It’s professional and distinctive. However, a exception should be made for really specialized LE like HRT.
Is “need” as you assess it, the only reason that they might use something?
Are they shackled to traditions and historied uniforms, or may they advance from there?
Just for laughs, hasn’t it been said in support of UCP that the Army didn’t need a camouflage, only a uniform?
What I’ve noticed, from my limited interactions with tactical teams, is that the try-hards roll around in enough Multicam and gear to make an airsofter envious, and the real pipe hitters wear solid colors.
Gear queers exist in all walks of life.
Well, let’s ban it for civilian use, too. Except realtree variants for hunters. So only military “needs”camo. Except they can’t figure out what camo they need…
It ain’t the camo that causes the problem. It’s poor leadership, poor mindset, public attitude, shit training, limited budgets, etc. Mission creep, meaning all the shit everyone thinks they want LE to be, is another concern. But easier to ban “scary” looking stuff than look at root causes and real solutions.
Kinda like gun bans.
America has the police force it deserves. The one that it (through its courts and politicians) wanted and asked for. And there is not a better policing model on the planet, despite the problems.
But camo is the problem. Right.
Camo is an occasionally appropriate choice for LE tactical use. Uniformity is more important, IMO, and I believe OD or grey to be a better choice for most purposes. But to say no camo, ever, just because, is dumb.
Funny thing…LAPD chose their midnight navy uniform color way back when because it was the hardest to see at night. You know, practical camouflage for their environment. Sneaky cops.
Hey, SSD, who is gonna fund all this neato new stuff? These hardware solutions for software and firmware problems? Oh yeah, the taxpayers. LOL. Good luck.
Matt you are taking this way out of context. No one is saying that camouflage is the main problem with the police force. What people are saying is that it’s a possible solution to HELP reduce the military look within law enforcement which IS a PROBLEM (i’ll explain later). That’s what this whole article is about. Thinking and discussing solutions on how to make our police force look more traditional and less military, while maintaining effectiveness.
The average cop maintains a presence to deter criminal activity and to interact with the population (total opposite of concealment). If you do not look a police officer in the eyes of civilians, then they will be discouraged from interacting with you. This is double true if you look like a soldier. Our society does not like the military being involve in law enforcement and domestic affairs. This is just historical, tracing back to the founding of this country. So if you look like a soldier, you are just making your job harder to do. That far outweighs the protective benefits you gain from wearing camouflage (which is insignificant for the average LEO).
So yes, Getting rid of camouflage in most of law enforcement is a small but logical solution. You cannot seem to counter this with anything besides saying it’s not a “real solution” and spitting out more derogatory comments.
Now, you could try to get to the root cause of this problem by changing how society expect law enforcement to look like, but that is huge undertaking. You are better off changing the equipment to better meet the public’s expectations and standards, while maintaining effectiveness.
If the trend of the public disliking the look of law enforcement continues. Then the government may start changing things and allocate money towards it, as to conform to the will of their constituents.
Btw, reread Erik’s comment and you will realize that he did not say out right that camouflage should be eliminated totally out of law enforcement. He does state however, that the average cop and even SWAT in his opinion should not wear camouflage.
Steve S – Well said.
Thanks Steven, someone gets it.
When you look at the militarization of police on the whole, just like you said, one of the main problems is that police officers are looking more and more like soldiers. That further segregates police from your every day citizen which they’re supposed to be protecting and serving. I’m not a cop, but I feel like a lot of them see citizens as “Us verses them”.
Perception is reality a lot of the time. If you take cops out of camouflage that helps remove that perception that the cops on the street are being more militarized. After all, if they dress like the military, they’re militarized right?
There are, I’m sure, a few specific instances where a police officer would need to be in camouflage, but like I said, your beat cops and probably 95% of SWAT teams don’t need it. Especially those idiots on top of buildings downtown wearing ghilly suits.
What beat cops are wearing camouflage?
People making snap judgments are doing so without context. A comment such as “95% of SWAT teams don’t need it” may be factually accurate if you are also of the opinion that 95% of police departments do not “need” swat teams. Being from an agency who does snot use a SWAT team in situations where they should, this kind of statement makes my blood boil a bit. Just like the statement gun control advocates make “if it even saves one life, it is worth it”. People not liking the way I look, should not sacrifice my ability to do my job safely. It would be similar to me making the argument that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should go into villages without their armored vehicles/helmets/body armor etc. because their job is to “win hearts and minds”, and having that intimidating equipment makes their job harder… I call bullshit.
I am on what would be considered a part-time SWAT team for quite some time now. For those all hung up on uniforms, we use a solid color. Agreed, working in an urban environment, its not necessary to have camo. But if I were going into a wooded environment, looking for an armed suspect, I would damn sure like to have some, needed or not. Some teams I know of use camo as their primary uniform, not because it makes them look like soldiers, but because it is practical to have one uniform (no one likes to spend money and buy multiple different types of uniforms) if they are more likely to work in a wooded environment. It may be unnecessary, in a more urban environment, but it actually saves money.
I understand the difference between Law Enforcement and Military, and don’t need any lecture on U.S. history. But people unfamiliar with law enforcement tactics, law, and case law, are ill prepared to make decisions like “police don’t need tanks”. For certain, police don’t need tanks, and the only time I recall seeing any law enforcement agency with an actual tank was the FBI in Waco Texas, and that tank was specifically modified to dump CS gas down the barrel, not explosives. Having what I would call “armor” allows us to get into position safely, evacuate innocents, deploy less lethal alternatives, just to name a few uses. An in fact, law enforcement is more likely to be justified in using deadly force absent such equipment. An example would be an emotionally disturbed person, firing shots outside their home. If law enforcement is able to utilize armor to communicate with the subject, and even take fire in doing so, they are less likely to shoot the subject (if they are in armor as opposed to unprotected).
Just a few thoughts. I agree with the view that the problem in some agencies is leadership and training, but to paint our entire profession as “militarized” if crap.
Gee…I guess LE has never had military type uniforms as a part – military organizational structure. I guess I can look back in history and never see army uniforms that were similar to police uniforms. That Sam Browne belt is sure an anomaly.
Who will police the fashion police?
Well played.
Some of us in LE wore multicam long before the military did. We often have to do things in terrain that may not be dominated by concrete and siding, but part of a woodlot. There usually the budget to maintain a set of uniforms for camo use, a set for in town, and another set for when it gets dark. It is also cheaper to buy and easier to find uniforms that a lot are manufactured of. So continue to laugh away.
I agree completely. LE in general does not need camouflage for any reason. There are a few exceptions for specialized teams but generally a solid color is fine. I am the team leader of a specialty tracking/surveillance and sniper team for my agency. We wear Multicam but only because a large part of what we do is surveillance from woodland areas. We sneak in through the woods, watch and leave without anyone knowing we are there. We have used Multicam to great value but not because it’s cool but because IT WORKS. We are in north Florida and the terrain here is perfect for Multicam. We also use Multicam because it is available in abundance. As I said, I believe my team is the very small exception to the rule, as we are called to assist multiple agencies throughout our region. Otherwise, a solid color is all that is needed.
It’s not hard to make class A police uniforms in a breathable and durable material. Everytime I see a fat cop in Ninjawear, gucciflage, or a polo shirt and 5.11s….I die a little more inside. Same with a Punisher skull on their car.
I suggested this very thing a few years ago on a popular forum and was quickly accused of being anti-Cop. I guess thinking Police Officers should look like Police Officers is anti-safety/ anti-cop.
I’m betting companies like Beyond, Crye, or the Dirty Bird could make a rocking uniform that would honor the long police heritage.
They could without a doubt come up with some very creative solutions and are dieing to do so. In very specialized cases, work has already begun. Most of that is in low-vis/transitional pieces. Reality dictates however that those Federal/Local dollars will instead be spent with companies who manufacture overseas. 5.11, Vertx, Condor etc.
For those unaware, its worth noting that the Berry Amendment doesn’t require local or federal agencies to purchase or R&D domestically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_Amendment — it would be nice to see that change and our tax dollars be invested with American companies and into American jobs.
a la Kissell Amendment?
True and as long as the gov’t will provide grants on berry clothing that could work. If not, many dept’s just plain won’t be able to afford a lot of berry compliant stuff.
Class A’s don’t work well for patrol work. Changing tires, searching dirty cars, tracking bad guys through the woods and fighting folks in Class A uniforms is ridiculous. Wearing shiny “shoot me” badges and name plates don’t work well for us at night. Also, I can’t count how many name plates I’ve broken fighting. A well kept Class B works great. Embroidered name and badge on the shirt and cargo pockets on the pants. When it comes to camo, there are a lot of departments and sheriff offices that at in rural areas. There is a need but it is limited (man tracking, serving high risk warrants in rural areas, ect). And everybody needs to remember that the point of camouflage is to conceal. It’s hard to stay concealed in the woods tracking or moving to a warrant service location when you’re wearing a blue or black uniform. Those colors don’t exactly blend with the wooded environment. JMHO.
The militarization argument is a joke. The police have always worn military style uniforms because they are a paramilitary organization. Go look at some older pictures, 1930s etc, belt fed machine guns were used too. As for the no camo idea thrown out above, that is a wonderful example of lack of critical thinking ability exhibited. I know it’s hard to believe but some places in rural settings actually need to be able to do covert surveillance , sometimes fairly often. Even in urban areas it occasionally crops up. Or I could point out there have been a few fairly high profile manhunts in the past few years where small unit patrol activities where used vs the apparently cute thought that you could just walk up to the door and knock because they took place in heavily wooded areas. I’m not all that familiar with agencies that conduct routine patrol work in camo either, the external vest carriers are used on occasion. They help get the 20-25 pounds worth of gear off the hips, lower back, and sciatic nerve area. Pretty long gone are the Adam 12 days of a revolver, a dump pouch, and a set of handcuffs being all that is carried even in patrol.
A more comfortable patrol uniform is a great idea. Something that is comfortable in a wide variety of weather conditions (standing out at a barricaded subject or accident scene in very cold weather then in a 90 degree house of an elderly person on the next call). Fairly fire retardant would be nice. Some resistance to blood pathogens as well. Easy to clean blood, puke, urine, fecal matter, and other body fluids off of. Not too reactive to chemicals is needed (meth labs and the occasional alarms at industrial sites, and chemical riot agents. I’ll let the screwy really rare concerns that only have cropped up a few times like anthrax and ricin exposure go. Something that you can run in, climb in, and fight in as well. Not too hard to get and not too expensive to replace when it becomes worn or torn. Something that you can put a hard armor plate carrier, over quickly, if your lucky enough to have them and have the time would be useful to. Oh and apparently it can not offend anyone’s fashion sense. But wait are we talking about patrol or swat teams when they are on call out and riots?
Definitely good point on the universal precautions.
Right like comfortable normal pants and a long or short sleeve polo. Or look towards rural depth with jeans and a button down.
Jason,
I haven’t seen anyone propose that camouflage should not be used by ANY Law Enforcement. However, some people (myself included) have stated that the majority of LE doesn’t appear to have a need for camouflage based on reasoning.
Also, you mention that in the rural areas, the police need to have camouflage to conduct covert surveillance. While that makes sense, I want to mention that almost all of the rural areas I have been to, the sheriffs and cops seem to wear more traditional law enforcement clothing. I wonder why?
Btw, do not confuse the last part as being sarcastic. I legitimately do not know why they tend to wear the more traditional clothing.
This guy gets it
It’s high time that law enforcement drop the overtly military tactical look. I know this will make me sound like a dinosaur, but I miss the days of spit shined shoes/boots, pressed uniform creases, neatly trimmed mustaches, long sleeves for those with tattoos, straight wood batons, and shined leather belts and holsters. There just seems like there’s no pride in just being a beat cop anymore. Everybody what’s to look like the have a foot beat in Iraq. When I started in the business in the early 80’s we wore wool Class A uniforms and when the temps reached over eighty degrees we wore a Class B cotton/poly uniform. We wouldn’t have dreamed of bdu’ s or God forbid commie shorts and sneakers.
The traditional image of a police officer is nice but completely impractical for road/uniform patrol officers. If you were going to chase someone or get into a fight or walk around in 90 degree heat for 10-12 hours would you choose to wear what is essentially business slacks and a button-down shirt? Of course not. It isn’t practical to wear 20+ pounds of gear on a duty belt, either. It’s bad for the back and hard to run in. My waist (34) isn’t even big enough to carry all my issued equipment on my duty belt! Yet, putting all that gear on an external soft armor carrier looks too militaristic…whatever that means. Whatever is safest, most comfortable, and most practical is what patrol officers should wear. Public perception be damned.
T. J Hooker could make it work…..especially with a PR24
We all make it work…but that doesn’t mean it’s the best way.
No, you can’t damn public perception. Stuff’s gone too far now. The days of doing it the way you’ve always done it are over. Some changes are going to have to be made.
+1 SSD. That is the key point that everyone has to get.
Change is coming and it is better to be in the lead of a transition than get run over by it.
Great topic and discussion by the way.
TLB
SSD, are we talking about image and “militarization” or are we talking about use of force and policing strategies?
If we are talking about image and “militarization” I maintain that public perception should be considered, at most, minimally. The most important consideration is officer safety. If an external soft armor carrier with pockets to get some of the gear off my belt looks “militarized” then too bad. External carriers make it easier for us to move around when we’re chasing the guy who just burglarized someone’s house or when fighting the guy who just beat the tar out of his wife/girlfriend. And easier = safer. Anyone who has never worked as a police officer is unqualified to make decisions on police uniforms.
Now, if we are talking about use of force and policing strategies I agree that some changes must and will be made. However, uniform changes aren’t the answer to that problem.
Uniform changes, that don’t compromise safety, are the fastest and most visible signs you can offer. Everything else is going to take time.
How has crime transformed? You had me throughout the article, but I’m not aware of much crime differentiation over the last 20 years. Especially in the areas where the tac teams/SWAT/etc have been established.
“Eventually, as crime in America transformed”
Your article doesn’t focus on how agencies have been using these tools as retention/morale/training programs over the last 20 years. And easy money grabs with federal/state grants while playing up the threat profile.
You might want to re-read history in 1996, North Hollywood specifically.
So other than putting patrol rifles and/or machine pistols in every patrol vehicle…we need to wear/use military tactical gear for daily patrol? Because of an event that might happen once or twice every fifteen to twenty five years? I’ve got a better idea…let’s SWAT train and equip (within reason) every patrol officer. Stop wasting money, resources, time, and effort on these garage SWAT Teams to placate egos and put together a regional SWAT Team and pool resources. Let the large county law enforcement agencies operate and maintain SWAT Teams.
As is the mobsters in the 30’s didn’t have tommy guns…
One shootout in one city in our otherwise quite massive an diverse country 19 years ago does not justify patrolmen running around like its some sort of gang war Ragnarok all the time.
It also does not show a “transformation” in crime. But, rather it was a tragic and horrible blip in the overall trend of crime in general. Most criminals still do not do what those guys did. Overall violent crime has been falling since at least the 1990s. We are not all living in Gotham City. If there is a place where the threat of North Hollywood style shootouts are likely enough to really justify some of the more egregious examples of unneeded militarizationthen we have bigger problems.
Besides, the real take away from that event was realizing a need for police to have access to long guns to augment their side arms and shotguns. Once officers got a hold of an AR the tides of that shootout changed rapidly. Now many if not most departments have an AR or similar long gun in the majority of their cruisers. So the lesson was learned and we can move on.
+ 1 bloke…and thanks also for referencing Ragnarok.
TLB
So the Right wing IS wrong.
Glad to hear the “ISIS is HERE!” claims being BS have been agreed on.
I’ll see Terry B.’s +1 and raise you 1d20
Yup…I love how every little piss pot police department now has a SWAT Team to give the guys something to do in lieu of promotions. How can an average sized department in suburbia gain enough experience in actual SWAT calls each year to be anything other than a Kabuki Theater of tactical operations. I spent my 25 year career in a very large west coast agency and was on our SWAT Team for a time. We ran hundreds of call outs a year and it’s the experience that makes the team. How can small agencies even compare. Most small SWAT Teams are just for show and have neither the practical experience, budget, nor training to really accomplished their mission. BTW we had various types of camouflage uniforms available for very special circumstances, but normally we just wore olive drab bdu’ s.
Yet, most of those small agencies manage to do just fine in tactical operations. Especially on the West Coast. So, does that mean your model of large agency tactical team is an expensive waste of time and money? I’ve worked with large agency, full-time teams that were a CF and small agency teams that were nails. As an aside, I’ve got 22 years on, some with a 950 deputy agency and most with a 25 officer agency. Size, if anything, is BS when it comes to quality.
The question is, what should uniform manufacturers make to counter the absolutely bogus, media and tinfoil-created “militarization of the police” hysteria. The president is not a friend of LE and has been wrong on every LE issue that’s come up. It doesn’t matter if we wear multicam, or my preferred LAPD midnight navy, people are stupid and will hate us and the president has told them it’s ok.
It’s great to get an LEO’s perspective on the matter – too many people don’t understand the day-to-day realities of LEO’s and too easily make assumptions that they “don’t need this”.
Where you are 100% right is that unfortunately we have come to a point where society is asking for change – whether it is educated or not does not matter because it is being pushed at high levels of politics and through our media. The question becomes “How should LE respond to this and how can LE “adapt” to meet the demands of the citizens without compromising their ability to get the job done.
I believe that this gets to the heart of the SSD post above – industry should partner with LEO’s to find a middle ground that alleviates concerned citizens and talking heads but still provides them with adequate and legitimate protection. There will be concessions on both sides – but there certainly is a middle ground. As an industry participant I look forward to the challenge and invite commentary on how we can accomplish this task given these parameters (however ridiculous they may be). I do not think pissing contest commentary will do the situation much good.
Thank you for your service and keeping our communities safe.
Criminals have access to more money which means better weapons. Additionally, some criminal gang members have joined the military to receive training.
Nothing changes…law enforcement has always been underfunded and technologically behind the times. Just look at the prohibition era and the rise of interstate crime sprees. This is nothing new.
Money is being spent. The question is, is it being spent on the right stuff?
Take the firearms concept out of this link and replace it with any police related concept – https://primaryandsecondary.com/2015/05/police-and-the-minimum-requirement/
Does this article upset you Matt?
I see something to have an underlying concern for. That is to give in. If cops wore pink uniforms and no guns, they would still be hated, be blamed, and attacked – well, attacked more in that case. Not everyone is a fan of authority figures.
There is pride involved for me, being a veteran cop. The idea to let the masses dictate how I need to act even though they do not have a basic understanding of the way the system works outside of how it is represented on TV makes me concerned. That being said – some slight modifications to uniforms could be very beneficial to the officers.
The people that distrust law enforcement will require much more than a change of uniforms to sway their tainted opinions.
So in a nutshell – that is my take.
That’s fair and it’s understandable to be wary of change. Unfortunately, Law Enforcement is losing the IO campaign. Public confidence in policing must be bolstered. It’s in the best interest of LE professionals as well as society writ large. One way to do that is outward appearance. While it’s a hardware solution to a software problem, it’s instantly recognizable.
The British basically have been steadily making their uniforms more hi-vis reflective.
Is that the answer?
May I ask why a Facepage link is brought into this forum? The one thing I enjoy about SSD besides the insight and news is that while it may be controversial at times, the holster sniffing butthurt usually stays away.
Keep this crap on facebook, if you want to grow your numbers for your group do it somewhere else.
It hasn’t. In reality, crime has been on a downward trend since the 60s, so crime has “transformed” into becoming less prevalent.
The whole “crime has transformed!” thing is a load of bullshit that has been peddled since the prohibition era to justify increased budgets, more laws, and more prisons.
And chris K, you bring up north hollywood. Ill counter with the st valentines day massacre, which killed more people. North hollywood is a shallow justification for what has occurred with policing.
ill add that the whole_military uniforms and armored vehicles_thing is a bit of a red herring. What is concerning is surveillance, the provisions in the patriot act, and the shenanigans from the DEA special operations unit.
You forget that the perps in the North Hollywood shootout had hundreds of 9mm bouncing off them and attacking helos.
I’ll call your magic body armor that takes hundreds of rounds and raise you a Ned Kelly.
IIRC, they made it themselves.
Double layered II Kevlar in a wetsuit like design.
Ammo expenditures by Law Enforcement is documented for that day.
Again, all Law enforcement had those days were pistol rounds, even wheelguns.
There’s more than one documentary with actual footage and interviews on the internet.
Crime has been on a downward trend, but the longitudinal data today is much richer and includes dramatically more of the U.S. geography/population. In other words, the overall crime data is a pretty shaky data set to stand on.
The measure that is certainly more accurate is law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty. That is a fairly solid analytic dataset. It also indicates that law enforcement is seeing minor reductions in police murders, the number is variable and decoupled from the overall crime trends of society. In other words, it is arguably more dangerous to be a cop today than in the 1960’s. Qualitatively, I think all kinds of changes in TTPs – in-car cages, more safety education, better comms, better search techniques, etc. probably have made cops safer, but the data is not clear.
Personally, my small area has had two law officers killed in the last several years where bad guys were approached in a soft, respectful, community-friendly manner and then the bad guys went for their guns. Both incidents ended up in lengthy stand-offs with armored vehicles, state tactical teams, etc. My anecdotal information is the “Officer Friendly” approach is getting good cops killed. I know I am very happy there are reasonably-trained cops with scary vehicles and baggy pants ready to interpose themselves in between the evil and my family.
incidents per capita is pretty dam clear. Go do some homework.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-americas-police/2014/12/05/35b1af44-7bcd-11e4-9a27-6fdbc612bff8_story.html
I agree that with a few exceptions such as police marksman camouflage uniforms are unlikely to provide any tactical advantage to Officers. Patrol Officers in class C uniforms should not look like soldiers, outer vest carriers should blend with the uniform and not be covered in molle attachment points. I am a U.S. Army infantry veteran with multiple combat deployments and a member of a municipal S.W.A.T. Team. We wear solid colored uniforms and are equipped with raid vests helmets and rifles. All of our equipment was purchased with local funds and was selected for specific tactical advantages. Our team has had several Officers shot recently and saved by vests and helmets. Any touchy feely re design of tactical equipment that is not expressly done to increase the Officers safety or mobility is a betrayal of both the Officers and the Public who deserve the most effective and safest tactical teams available to respond when a normal patrol response isn’t appropriate. Instead of pandering to race baiters and anti government conspiracy nuts we as professionals should police our own. The constitutional appropriateness of all use of force should be included in training and S.W.A.T should live up to its name and deploy tactically as each situation requires not as an excuse to show off all their cool toys.
Well said.
Well said Nathan.
Great response.
On a side note…how about letting patrol officers exhaust all of their resources and abilities before management runs screaming like little girls to call out SWAT. We would constantly get called out to incidents that in the recent past would have, and should have, been handled by patrol officers. I fear we’re raising a whole generation of cops too afraid or too timid to work through situations and handle themselves. It’s easy to call SWAT and let them do your dirty/risky work.
That’s a great idea.
Unfortunately, that would require Law Enforcement Administrators to trust their line officers. In too many large agencies that just doesn’t happen any more.
Heaven forbid your 22 y/o rookie takes care of business and drags a suspect out of a car window. Only to have cell phone video the encounter end up on Facebook and go viral.
Never mind that every cop who watches the dash cam video thinks the rookie handled it almost text book perfect.
Now the media is involved, lawyers looking make a quick buck show up, lawyers who are under the misguided notion they’re going save the world lead protests.
So the Admin just makes a blanket policy; if the situation could possible require any Special Weapons And/or Tactics the SWAT team is to be called out.
I’m thankful everyday I work my dept isn’t like that.
Lawyers. LIability. Boom, head shot. Effectively, there is no qualified immunity in the 9th Circuit, so why should I risk my house and future when I can just page out the team? Everybody is a badass, until they are getting deposed for a Federal Civil Rights violation case with their name as defendant.
With that attitude, maybe you should find a new line of employment.
Except that is the reality of it. Not only are officers scared of the attorneys but so are the department’s attorneys who wrote their general orders. The key phrase is “nationally recognized best practices” is the same thing as “the standard of care” for doctors and those lawyers will spend the next 18 months 40 hours a week comparing your actions as a 22 year old rookie to the decisions of EVERY veteran Officer at EVERY agency in the country. No agency will ever have the the resources to risk a federal 4th amendment with no tort limit much less train every Officer to conduct forced entries and have the resources of a crisis negotiations and intelligence team at the disposal. Let’s not forget S.W.A.T.’s job is to slow a critical incident down, isolate the threat and resolve the crisis without loss of life including the suspect. Let’s also not forget that all Office while answering a noble calling are not cut from the same cloth and regardless of the amount of training they receive are not appropriate for all situations. Police Departments are no longer dealing with idiot crack heads and tin foil hat wearing lunatics but with and increasingly violent, organized and tactically proficient opposition. The public deserves Departments with the capability to resolve these situations peacefully, for every shooting you hear about thing of the 100 were the offender was taken into custody safely. Lastly to those who believe we shouldn’t raid dope houses or go home when a bad guy barricades in his house after xyz crime like it’s a base in tag I ask this. Would you want that dope house or murderer/rapist/domestic abuser who threatens violence to the police to be between your front door and your kids bus stop? Hell no you would be screaming for us to DO something regardless of the fact you complain about the taxes that underfund our departments to the point patrol cars regularly break down and there is nominee to train.
Sorry about the typos I responded from my little screened phone. Be Safe.
He’s right; this is not the job of me, anymore. I have less than 4 years till I can retire. I’m officially R.O.D. until then. Sucks, because I was a true believer and hunter of men. Oh, well. Society wants pussies in uniform; who am I to argue?
“Police Departments are no longer dealing with idiot crack heads and tin foil hat wearing lunatics but with and increasingly violent, organized and tactically proficient opposition.”
Can this statement be backed up with actual data and statistics? Or would crime and violence rates seem to suggest otherwise?
It is an established fact that there has been a significant amount of military that had and/or joined gang/militia/hate groups prior to, and after active duty.
There was a definite percentage increase of this military population when around the “Surge” years when recruiting standards were relaxed to recruit said criminals (particularly the Army).
Add this to the ever increasing SPLC’s and ADL’s lists’ surge of such groups (especially militia types) in the last six years means ALOT.
There is video evidence of several cases of shootouts utilizing military tactics, if not first hand accounts of military admitting this, including physical graffiti “tags” of said gangs/militia/hate groups in Iraq/Afghanistan.
I believe even Fox news did a story on this.
orly,
Baloney. Don’t believe every “established fact” you hear on any news source about the military.
What I see is that there seems to be far too much fear mongering when it comes to veterans in the last few years.
According to recent news stories, the American people are led to believe that veterans are “overwhelmingly” homeless or drug addicted or alcoholic or PTSD damaged psychos.
Human timebombs who are incapable of rejoining society because they have been damaged by military training and war…and deserving only of your pity.
Or veterans are joining or forming: hate groups, street gangs, drug cartels, motorcycle gangs…or police departments near you and should be feared.
Fucking nonsense.
TLB
Terry B.
Don’t be so naive, the military is far from perfect, but ask people that recently served.
I’ve personally had to discover these facts in troubling ways (I downplayed them too).
That, and actually watch the news… There are quite a few recent news events proving the problem exists (including the Sikh Temple attack).
The military itself recognized this problem publicly as well, safety briefs included.
orly,
I served in the Army from 1975 thru 2011. I haven’t been retired that long. And I’m pretty sure I’m not “naïve” about the military.
And I do watch a great deal of news. Much of it wildly inaccurate (to be polite).
When it comes to the military (much like the discussion here about police) most reporters don’t know anything about the subject they are covering.
Of course the military is imperfect. It is made up of humans and not surprisingly reflects our larger imperfect society.
So there are always going to be some “bad apples” among those who have served. But not many, not even a significant minority.
BTW, this isn’t a new phenomena. Much the same blanket character smears were made about the returning Vietnam generation of veterans.
I just suggest you don’t fall for it.
TLB
There are already a large number of peer reviewed academic studies on this issue. Many are from Universities in the US and a number of recent studies from the EU.
Blazers and ties were at one time an option for local police. Although studies show some amazing initial positive results shifting to blazers and ties, those results evaporated over time.
My prefernce based on color studies from the EU would be a similiar uniform worn by French Gendarmerie: BDU style black pants, powder blue polo shirt with rank tab on the center front, and ball cap. Just google French Gendarmerie and you will see this uniform or it can be seen on the Gendarmerie page on wikipedia.
I also forgot to mention that some territorial police forces in Australia have eschewed carrying gear on belts and have had their officers wear lightweight breathable vests (not bullet proof) instead. This has reduced work related back injuries and in one study showed reduced stress levels for officers when the weight of all their police gear is distributed over their shoulders rather than just riding solely on their hips!
I know this is an industry blog or whatever, but isn’t it possible that solutions to law enforcement’s image problems lie outside the “tactical industry?” Just Tim’s comments seems to strike much more at the core of the issue than simply asking Blue Force Gear to make more minimalist equipment.
The one problem I constantly have with this site is the apparent belief that there’s no problem that can’t be solved with a new design of tactical nylon. Calling on the “tactical industry” to solve what shouldn’t be a tactical or equipment question speaks to this bias.
The tactical industry is already geared up to do this. Swap out multi cam material for the soft solid color of your choice and whammy, instant soft image!
How you interact with the public should be the most important focus of any police effort. If you had Vader armor-wearing, guntruck-riding (hyperbole) community policing geniuses your town would be more effectively policed than if you had traditional blues-wearing jackasses that couldn’t earn people’s trust or respect. Going back to basics- The clothes don’t make the man, It’s the man that makes the clothes.
Ah yes…it most certainly is the man (or woman) that makes the clothes. But, in today’s politically correct, let’s make our department look like our community, and let’s lower our high standards so we can hire more folks of color, women, or whatever the administrative brown noses want, you are not always hiring the best. Remember…there’s only a certain percentage of the population that wants to be a copper, then there’s a smaller percentage that can pass all the idiotic tests, then there’s a even smaller percentage that will wait around to be actually hired, then there’s a really small percentage who can put up with the mindless and moronic academy training and assanine outdated field training program, then there a really really small number who can actually remain a cop longer than two to five years. Now when you cherry pick only minorities and women that’s an even smaller number of folks in the candidate pool. In law enforcement we’ve almost put ourselves out of business and we continue to rely on basically witchcraft and voodo to hire police officers. With this new Generation X and the Millilum Generation it’s going to get harder and harder to hire folks that interact with other humans…these kids have grown up being told they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread and spending all their time on computers. They just lack people skills and you can’t teach that in an 18 to 20 week police academy. Most of these kids have never been in a fist fight, let alone ever yelled at. You could hire the current crop of vets, but the news has already painted them as PTSD time bombs that could snap at any second…that scares administration, so they won’t hire. If you hire college grads, you get folks that all they want to do is talk and they won’t fight…in other words, they’re a bunch of yammering pussies. We’ve just killed our potential hiring pool with stupid shit like voodo polygraph exams, absurd psych tests that weren’t even designed for screening police officers, crappy interview techniques by hiring boards, civilian personnel meddling, and allowing drug users to be hired. I’m ashamed I wasted a quarter century in a business that has allowed ourselves to not only become a laughingstock, but a lighting rod for every stupid thing that the politicians have foisted upon us. It’s high time we start befriending local reporters and giving them our training For inside scoops like we use to do so they can see how hard our job is and not be so fast to pass judgement.
All college grads are yammering pussies huh? Guess thats why they require you don’t have a college degree to put that O in your pay grade and lead men into the shittiest, most austere places in the world. Oh, wait, they did ask me for some transcripts or something…
That’s the only thing you gleaned from my post? Wow…I’ve got two graduate degrees and a post graduate degree and I’m the first one to say that the current crop of kids we’re getting out of college that are interested in a law enforcement career are neither educationally, emotionally, or physically ready for the realities of police work…in other words, they’re all coat and no trousers. They are self entitled, overly impressed with themselves, have horrific interpersonal skills, tend to over analysis situations, and are extremely reluctant to physically engage bad guys. They talk a lot, but won’t mix it up when necessary…that equates to me as yammering pussies. There are very few exceptions, but administrators seem reluctant to hire vets (no matter the education) for fear of the over hyped non-issue PTSD issue. I’m very afraid that we’re gonna get a whole generation of police officers that are in the job only for a paycheck and do not look at the career as a calling.
+1. Cops could wear pink & fuzzy slippers & there will always be the die hard critics. But in the last 10-15 yrs there is a lot more criticism coming from more ordinary people, even other cops & retired cops too. This criticism is about attitude, manners etc. what went wrong? Wearing camo doesn’t do this but the critics are saying it’s a cause or symptom. I don’t think so, but a lot of cops across North America are doing wonders to turn a lot of people against them. Be polite, be courteous and have a plan to bust everyone you meet. But do you really need to bust that person? Just because they aren’t being subservient doesn’t make them an enemy or someone who needs to be arrested.
If your objective is to totally dominate everyone in every encounter, this will lead to trouble or lack of support in the future, if not at this moment. The number of encounters you can find on YouTube alone of cops arresting someone for a pidally infraction, can’t you just write a ticket? Why escalate? Maybe the poor cops get on YouTube more often? Probably?
Well something needs to change and I don’t think fashion is the primary thing. That being said we laugh at the Navy & Air Force for wearing camo in a non-field environment. Does it make sense for cops to? Maybe 1 set for the exceptional unit or mission. But OD is real good too. If they do need camo should it not be different from the military?
Have a good day.
Great article; thanks again. Does anyone think something like the Crye LE01 pant or a Tru-Spec option has potential? It seems like one of these in RG or Coyote would work well-it retains a “soft” image, while still retaining such things as are needed in day to day work, such as cargo pockets and wide belt loops.
Wow… That escalated quickly.
Elliott Ness likely had the same problem.
I guess this is just what the overused and worn sheepdog story refers to by the fangs annoying the protected. Haters will be hating.
Can’t we just all get along and prepare to stomp the bad guys needing stomping? 🙂
From this point on all duty belts will be heavy duty reflective belts and service pistols will spray gentle douche and rainbows.
We wear multicam exclusively for our tactical needs. We also wear class B’s for 98% of our job. I am always careful to remind my guys, however, that it takes 5 minutes to put the stuff on and 5 years to learn how to use it effectively.
As has been said, for working in rural areas a total camouflage policy is REQUIRED when needed. So are plate carriers and helmets. In camouflage patterns if done correctly. My agency also has a 100% mortality rate, meaning that every officer who has been shot, and there have been 5 since 1990, is dead, three of them from rifles in daylight conditions.
The solution is simple. Wear the clothing and equipment that you need WHEN YOU NEED IT. If you are wearing it daily for intimidation or whatever,what if your plan works when it isn’t supposed to? Conversely, blanket implications like “LE doesn’t need camouflage uniforms” makes realists tune you completely out. What some meant to add was “for daily patrol” and I couldn’t agree more. But some didn’t do a good job articulating their argument.
I agree with challenging industry to spend more time on LE specific equipment and I hope that they do, but I also don’t want to be labeled a geardo because I spent years researching, acquiring, and using good kit with a .mil origin.
Good take Anthony.
I think the bottom line is that there is a lot of good kit out there and the days of Adam 12 shined low-quarters and ties just aren’t practical anymore. There is a happy medium somewhere, where cops can have a comfortable and practical uniform, without looking like he’s about to foot patrol through Baghdad.
Camouflage is just a portion of the perception, but a big one.
Anthony
That was the most reasonable comment I read so far. Stay safe!
I agree with SSD on this one. What else are we supposed to wear? What gear should we have? If there’s a piece of gear that is useful, and I can train with it, why shouldn’t I use it?
I wear a class A uniform every day for regular patrol. I love it. Still shine my boots every day, even after 18 years. That’s just me. I think our communities dictate how we act, what monies are spent on equipment, and how we are trained. If your community does not support you, you will not have the needed equipment.
I am fortunate enough to be part of a regional SWAT team. During our glorious time in Ferguson, our agency bought OD green uniforms just for the Ferguson detail. That’s what the public asked for. We obliged.
Changing the Uniforms is only making the proverbial Buddy Jesus. The Issue also is not wholly routed with the police themselves nor the equpment but the culture that seems to direct against them. You could dress a Department like NASCAR drivers with bright colors emblazoned brightly Colored POLICE logos yet still some would claim they were militant or dirty harry.
The Culture of F the Police would still rial against them as “The MAN” Even if “The Man” was in fact a member of the same cultural background.
That said I do belive there is a limit and full camo is a bit of a stretch. well the Adam 12 style of dress it seems to me is rather impractical.
I would rather patrol officers be dressed in a more practical modern perhaps even “sporty” manor with previsions for fire retardation, long wear with body armor and use in Cruisers. With high vis markings on Jackets and Externally worn plate carriers to serve road side duties.
SSD-
Thank you. Someone needed to say that.
“Traditional” cop uniforms are stupid. They are a derivative of the old military Class B. Which is nice for a pay day formation or working in a dark cubicle at some anonymous puzzle palace, but absolutely sucks for anything moderately athletic. Or with 25-30 pounds of crap on a belt and soft body armor under the shirt. Cop gear for Patrol guys has largely failed to evolve. SWAT has it better (and I buy our SWAT gear). We saddle our line guys with shit that is statistically certain to cause repetitive stress injuries and then puzzle at our long term injury rates. And don’t forget that pretty much all “Police” uniforms since the mid nineteenth century have been derivatives of (or surplus) military uniforms.
It has gotten slightly better. I started in stupid leather and polyester that melted around road flares. The more expensive wool blend was sharp looking but still uncomfortable as bringing your hooker girlfriend to the family Sunday dinner.
All of that shit is in my attic, along with the stupid fucking dress uniform that they could have bought a really nice PC and plates for what they spent. When I drop dead, my sainted wife can have someone from logistics crawl up into the fiberglass and take that shit back to issue to some rookie who doesn’t know any better. Because I am never touching it again except for the one uniform I keep out for court. And court is for rookies who write crappy reports; I don’t go much these days.
Current street wear is some Blauer polo and cargo pant type stuff that almost looks traditional but is comfortable and functional. I wish that Crye or someone would make a complete system for street cops that didn’t look like something out of Half Life 2 but was comfortable and functional. Arc’teryx is trying with their Vertx line but they haven’t quite gotten there yet. They really need to do a complete system; duty belt, armor and uniform.
And some cops need camo. Don’t forget that Multicam was a commercial pattern before the Army adopted it as OCP, and since the big Army is insistent on screwing Caleb and Co. over, it will be a commercial pattern again soon enough.
The whole mess is really over nothing. The folks on our side of this mess who are buying into the “militarization” argument have lost sight of the fact that cops have never been more restrained, better trained or more professional than now. That doesn’t mean that that there aren’t dipshit officers and agencies out there, but cops have NEVER been this good or professional in this country. The real issue is the leftists who have always hated cops and the forces of order, and it never mattered to them what we wore or what gear we were using.
Now give me my Crye patrolmans uniform and kit so I can die happy.
Amen to that.
Absolutely!
Mixed feelings on this issue on several levels. Spent many years as a solid proponent of Community Oriented Policing. I believe it still works, and one of the main issues is making cops more approachable. My team wore Blauer Streetgear pants, that had a “soft” type BDO pocket on the sides, and 5.11 Polo’s with our badge and name embroidered on them. Very comfortable to wear, more approachable for the public, but you stuff AR mags in the pockets in a moments notice, and go “tactical” if you had to. We wore nylon duty gear, and ball caps. Body armor under the Polo’s. When we wanted to be more formal we threw on a Streetgear uniform shirt with the shiny badge. All of the TAC gear stayed in the trunk until needed. I do believe that we are putting on a harder “look” than needed these days. And I have noticed an upswing in newer officers with that “I’m a cop your not” type attitude. We are starting to be our own worst enemies at times. The Cleveland case just settled is an example. 137 rounds fired at two people unarmed in a car due to a “backfire” after a 30 mile pursuit. Lack of supervision at the scene, and a definite training issue for all involved. These things hurt us as a community of professionals, and they kill us with the public perception, and no matter what you think, that perception matters. These are the people we work for in the end.
As to camo, I thought it’s main purpose was to break up outlines. For those of us working in rural areas, it’s near a necessity for surveillance and getting close to warrant objectives and so forth. But I still like the “normal” uniform, and never found my ability to hook a bad guy hindered by my pants, except the cheap ones that had the exploding crotches, but they went away pretty fast.
I do have to admit that as I age distributing some of the weight on low-vis vests and chest rigs has been helpful, and can still look professional – see the UK for example. I also like their use of high-vis material, the cop equivalent of the dreaded PT belt. Plenty of us get splattered while playing in traffic, and you can always take it off if you have to go into cloaking mode.
People have forgotten their history and need to look back to the good old days of policing, when Thompsons were bought at hardware stores, armored cars were the norm, and things like “civil liberties” and “community policing,” let alone a cop with training, or heaven forbid a college degree were hallucinations.
I rarely comment on this cite due to me being a civilian and not having a military back ground. I’m a 15 year Police officer and currently in a school policing capacity so I will use a quote from the father of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel that I read in the paper the other day while having a cup with the boys.
The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and dis-order, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
What I took from it is people hate crime and hate seeing it be dealt with. It’s a rock and a hard place where the goal is to be loved like fireman.
I think the whole militarization of police is nothing but this year’s anti-police slogan. The real issue is law enforcement’ s failure to take the lead in educating the public, politicians, and the media about the realities of police work. We’ve allowed the media to direct public opinion and TV shows to educate and mislead or exaggerate what we do. I think we need to start running every media person, politicians, and “community organizers” through our use of force and deadly force training and simulators to give them s taste of reality. We should befriend these folks and educate them about our job and the risks. In the old days, police departments gave special press badges and creditinals to local crime reporters and allowed them to actually work inside the stations. We should be reaching out and actually training these crime reporters instead of alienating them. American police cannot exist without community support.
Tim,
Excellent ideas.
I wonder why that concept went out of style?
Anyone,
Are there some departments out there that still do a good job at the local level with that kind of media / community outreach and education?
Good news stories about police interacting with their communities don’t make the national news very often.
TLB
Don’t forget Adam-12 and Dragnet were specifically designed by Jack Web and LAPD to do what I said…educate a growing hostile civilian base. This wasn’t true reality like COPS, but simple and effective soft pedaled propaganda. And it worked beyond anyone’s expectation and made the LAPD the place everyone wanted to go. We need something like a modern Adam-12. Something to reach out a grab kids and maybe have them consider law enforcement as a career. To answer your question regarding the way we worked with crime reports in the old days and why law enforcement stopped? I’m sure it had to do with modern post Watergate ideals of bullshit journalistic integrity and a clear desperation of the media and police. I’m not so sure it wasn’t’t a good idea that should be revisited. But with today’s alternative media and everyone having a cell phone camera it might just be a waste of time and effort. With the proliferation of surveillance cameras virtually everywhere and everyone having a cell phone camera, things have already changed. We’re already working from behind the curve and it’s going to be hell to get in front. This summer promises to be a very dangerous time and it feels that every large metro area is one incident or perceived slight away from rioting and insurrection. The uniform issue isn’t the problem, it’s just something obvious the leftist agitators in the media have latched onto…next month it’ll be too many bullets in our guns…don’t get sidetracked.
You bring up some good points but, you can’t lay all of the blame on the ‘leftist’ media. The right wing media has been critical of Law Enforcement as well. So long as the center holds, we are all ok.
I’d like you to consider this quote attributed to Albert Einstein:
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
It’s weird being the center.
You’re viewed as a “traitor” to everybody.
Makes it pretty hard to “hold.”
I’ve long said this is an IO campaign. You get it.
If LEO uses camouflage for the purpose of concealment why are they not wearing fascial camo paint?
Soldiers don’t do it anymore either.
And that stuff takes more time than I have in the three minutes from when I pull up to a call out to the time I have to be geared up to deploy to put on. Plus think how much crap people would talk if LEO’s did.
That’s correct if one look at operations conducted the last 14 years. However, I would camo up if I would be situated in area with more green vegetation.
Just wanted to make a (crappy) point that as a non LEO it sometimes feels more “fashion” over form and purpose.
I think my point was lost in the sarcastic tone, appologies sir, what I was trying to express was the advantages of applying face paint(albeit small) are generally outweighed in S.W.A.T. Operations by the the time it takes to properly apply. An analogy to military ops would be as QRF small unit leaders sometimes had to abbreviate or eliminate planning steps such as recon and service support considerations because they are responding to a unit in contact calling for help much like S.W.A.T. is bailing out patrol. Secondly Officers routinely apply a familiar Army thought process in M.E.T.T.-T.C. When applied to LE operations this concept would routinely place speed in containment over ultimate concealment. BTW the privates looked at me like an idiot when I was painting up 10 years ago. So I wasn’t disagreeing with just providing a reasoned explanation why my team doesn’t paint.
If folks are concerned about the wear of camouflage clothing, I can only imagine how face paint would go over.
Yea it’s sad that the social engineers can’t get on board with the law and order types and work on the real problems related to poverty such as fatherless homes, no cultural impetus to educate and pop culture glamorizing criminality. No the real problem is personal protective equipment worn by the very people who are trying to keep our urban centers from turning into lawless places like Lebanon where the only government is criminal terrorist gangs.
One of the biggest issues that have turned off ordinary, non-criminal citizens from supporting the police, is that the main purpose of LE now seems to be generating revenue for their employers. LE are seen as tax collectors via the harassment of citizens over minor infractions.
Not sure if it’s a case of “perception = reality” or not, but that is what I hear time and again from my civilian middle class family and friends.
This may have been covered in the long rolls of this conversation- I will admit that I didn’t read it all. I’m still recovering from the James Yeager conversation a few posts up…
The problem by my lights is not the most obvious symptom. The general loss of community policing as a method, is best represented to most people by the wear and use of .mil gear.
Camo doesn’t make cops more or less dangerous (well….it does actually) it does represent a cognitive shift toward a universal combat mindset- in spite of a generally safer environment. In fact, it isn’t a popular sentiment but its the safest time to be a cop in quite some time.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/02/once-again-police-work-is-not-getting-more-dangerous/)
I think we need less SWAT officers and more beat walkers. Cops that know your kids names (because they see them every day) are more likely to stop crime than Dudley do-right in a plate carrier.
I’ve seen small town deputy’s on patrol dressed like they just shuffled back into the FOB…stopping mini vans for rolling stops….
Let police be police.
We have a 369ish year old para military organization. The militia. There are the ‘organized’ and the ‘unorganized’ militia in these United States. The organized militia is the National Guard.
The paramilitary organization under the authority of the Governor of each state or territory should be the organization of record responding to incidents outside the scope of regular crime fighting – that organization us precisely the National Guard. (Discussions to determine where policing ends and tactical problems begin ought to take place.) We solved the problem hundreds of years ago and until recently it worked well. Our Constitution prohibits the use of our military to fight crime in most cases.
This is why we have a National Guard. This is in THEIR LANE.
At this point the eye rolling from both law enforcement and active component and former active component military begins. Reasons why such eye rolling takes place are many, among them are an ignorance of the law and history of the National Guard. Police should remain as Police and the military as military. The Guard is the only organization authorized by law to do both, that is why we have so many different paid duty statuses in the Guard: so that we can legally do what’s required whether that is Soldiering or Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA).
The fact of the matter is that police need to return to policing, and the Guard needs to be encumbered and held accountable for the missions it was designed to legally perform.
When a situation escalates Shit Gets Real, when a populace sees the police replaced by the Governors Soldiers, replete with full military power, acting under the authority of the Governor and not the city state kings that the tyrannical mayors have become.
That’s the proper role of the Guard as it was intended under the laws existing for hundreds of years and still on the books today. Relatively recently have we seen the advent of SWAT teams and paramilitary operations by peace officers.
There are 54 Guard entities representing each state and territory. We have mutual aid agreements between states when if the situation is such that a Governor needs additional troops or capability any other state can respond to a state requesting aid, in Louisiana for hurricane Katrina we were sworn in as Louisiana NG the moment we stepped off of the KC135 that brought us there. We have robust capability in Los Angeles so that had we been called out for the little North Hollywood incident, well a single up armored hummer with a CROWS mounted .50 cal or 40mm HEDP makes short work of dismounted belligerents; the 330th MP company is right there in town, they could be on seen in less than an hour if properly detailed and funded to respond – with capability a SWAT team can only dream of.
Yes there will be Kent States. There will not be scores of militarized police incidents or municipalities settling cases in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
The good thing is that the Governor is responsible, not the city and county administrators. If you can’t see it working, you don’t know the law, the context or the history.
Joe,
The issue at hand was legitimate concerns and wide spread perceptions (true or not) that American police have become too “militarized”.
Your solution is to give routine policing tasks like serving high risk warrants and dealing with small scale civil unrest to a clearly military organization like the National Guard?????
That would be better in your opinion? Partner, your grasp of both history and reality is tenuous at best. You couldn’t be more wrong and I suggest you seek help immediately.
TLB
I agree that there should be customization for today’s police force. There could easily be market research to see what the best look would be for a police officer to look official yet still friendly. There is a need here and room for growth.
It IS an IO campaign, something that is lost on many.
The extreme left has always hated LE. This is in their very DNA, going back to the anarchists/socialists and later communists, who, starting in the late 19th Century, clashed with the largely ineffective and much more heavy-handed LE of those eras. These were the leftists who assassinated a US President, bombed Wall Street and engaged in numerous “labor movements” that crossed the line in to outright insurrections that WERE put down with actual military force. A lot of the more socialist aspects of the US government were political moves to undercut some of the extreme left during the 1930s and are legacies that we are stuck with today.
As the extreme right (and the libertarians), American Police are overwhelmingly conservative, but there are enough outright lies and journalistic noise in the press about many high-profile Police incidents that the outliers on that end are starting to align with the extreme left, who have always hated Police.
The journalists, being leftists and generally being controlled and run by leftists, slant many things against the Police. The blogosphere is worse, as assertions are largely not backed by facts. One sees occasional glimmers of hope when the leftists on the journalism side overextend themselves with some of their lies and the right (and the center), recoil at the lawlessness that occurs (like in Missouri last summer).
The militarization argument is pure and unadulterated BS. Police aren’t doing anything dramatically different than what they were 20 years ago or even 40, as far as day-to-day operations go. They have better protective gear and better small arms, and better training for some standardized encounters, which, when coupled with better trauma medicine, has led our overall number of annual LE deaths to be about ½ to 1/3 of what they were during the 1970s. BUT the Assault rate against officers has stayed about the same; we are getting attacked as often as our dads and grandfathers, we just aren’t dying is often, which indicates that something we are doing is working. The fact that a cop has a carbine instead of a shotgun, and a ballistic helmet and PC in the trunk (along with a “Militarized” IFAK; don’t hear anyone griping about THOSE) has not changed how the beat cop interacts with people on a daily basis. It does mean that fewer cops are ending up dead.
The big thing that nobody wants to talk about is the reality of community policing. Real community policing efforts have the police working in partnership with alienated or underserved communities to bring the rule of law (and the social mores of the dominant society) into those communities in a general non-threatening way, while eliminating the lawless sociopathic elements from those communities, either through the penal system or getting them to join everyone else in being a decent citizen. The “problem-oriented policing” aspect of community policing programs also involves other entities in the government and local communities to get the cops away from doing everyone else’s scut work and back to crime fighting, because cops are expensive and are suited from crime fighting, not social work.
Agencies did all of that through the 1990s and were largely successful. The left hated that and have redefined community policing into a new model. Read the President’s Commission on Policing report; they want community policing efforts that don’t enforce the law, have the police working on feel good social programs and twitter feeds and return the streets to the lawless. They want social workers bound to their ideology, and not the street cops who arrest people and use force. The left thinks that “social justice” (along with income redistribution, diversity and other buzz words) will reduce crime. They want to castrate American policing organizations. And their IO campaign is working, because some of the right (and most of the libertarians) are agreeing with them.
For the street cops, the work is the same. We can and should select, train, lead and equip our officers better, and that would stop some of the more contentious incidents. But it wouldn’t stop all of them. We can’t do that without support of the political class, who have to give us enough money to hire the best candidates, give them ongoing high-quality training, provide them capable, trained leadership in the field, retain them through the tough times and give them the right gear.
We have to win (or at least get a prevailing counter-narrative in play) the IO campaign though. Or not. If the political right keeps buying the left’s BS narrative, the left will get the police they want, which won’t but much police at all.
But I still want my Crye Patrolman’s kit.
I find it strange that you advocate the policing of the 90’s and say the Left hated their success.
And also ignoring the War on Terror’s “we need rifles and other military things because AQ may strike America’s hometowns” paranoia, which pretty much got the ball rolling.
I am not advocating the CP model of the 1990s, just that we need to understand it the aspects of it that were successful and the aspects that weren’t. For most of LE, community policing is pointless PR work. There are aspects of it that are useful, and there are others that are often wastes of time, effort and money. The left wants to strip it of the crime fighting aspects and keep the pointless social work aspects, which the successful CP models traded for “Problem-Oriented Policing” efforts. CP efforts probably bear soem responsibility for ending the “Crack Wars” of the 1990s and making some big cities (like NYC) safer than they have been in decades.
The War on Terror has made changes to American LE, but mainly on the LE intel side, which was fragmented and disjointed pre 9-11 and is much less so these days. As far as rifles (or helmets, or armored vehicles, or IFAKs), cops have always needed those, but because they win gunfights or save lives. Those were deficiencies that were always there in many agencies and 9-11 was a convenient excuse to fix those capability gaps. What you wind up with are agencies that are better trained and equipped to deal with the things they have always handled.
The fact that I have a rifle, a PC and a helmet in my car doesn’t make me soldier any more than fact that also have a catch pole makes me an Animal Control officer or an IFAK makes me an EMT; they are all foreseeable jobs I might have do during any given shift. And I NEED the rifle out more often than the catch pole.
We are a contingency organization that has to handle a vast range of things with our wits, the Constitution and a smile. It helps to have good gear and appropriate training.
Well said Nate.
TLB
Wow…looks like someone knows his history. Nice job detailing the on-going leftist attacks. It put it in a clear perspective. I teach this stuff and I’d give you an A+ on that piece.
I thought that it was pretty poor form to tag into the P&S FB discussion solely to launch an ad hominem attack, against another poster who was addressing another member of P&S.
I was thinking you were trying to forment good discussion; but that seemed petty, unworthy of you, and unprofessional.
What is this, what does it have to do with this article, and who are you?
Cerise,
Get off your DHS work computer, and get back to work, I’m sure that your supervisors would be pretty pissed your accessing P&S Facebook or even SSD to post while your on your .gov computer and the Homeland Security timecard there in DC.
But then again who am I to bitch, I’m just a taxpayer.
Ad hominem much?
You seem to be the only person who knows what the argument is.
my apologies, what I should have said was the P&S thread was a feces flying circus complete with personal attacks at Eric, and basically anyone else who disagreed with the original poster.
While I do not mean to attack you personally in any way shape or form, I do think it is rather ironic that the main issue in the thread is how law enforcement is perceived, and yet you are here making comments while working for the DHS, on the clock from your .gov computer. Which does not sit well with most tax payers as I’m sure there are things for you to do other than keep tabs on an appendage measuring contest on facebook.
The irony does not escape me good sir,
Is that what this is supposed to be about? The guy who creates an account on SSD in order to tell me what a bad person I am and that I only joined a Facebook group in order to say that someone was a bad person? Seriously? Facebook…ugh. Grow up.
I have been a member of P&S for quite awhile but rarely comment because I run a business and can’t post on FB every time some guy wants to talk about ELCANs.
“I was thinking you were trying to forment good discussion; but that seemed petty, unworthy of you, and unprofessional.”
I thought that the post here was worth discussion, was worth being distributed further, and as quoted above felt that the “I finally had a chance to read through this and caught a few laughs. The “stay in your lane” comment is always comical from a guy who hung around Det-One like a groupie wanting them to call him the Det Gunner.” post undermined the imagined intent of the article.
Yet, the only thing discussed is that I was on lunch, and through that was stealing from the employer. Bizarreness.
I did read the comments on Facebook and did laugh at them. It’s obvious that most of the people commenting didn’t read the article. You want to actually discuss it? Come here. I approved your comment even though it has zero to do with the article in question and everything to do with a guy’s hurt ego.
My comment regarding “Mr stay in your lane” stands. It’s true. I don’t go out of my way to shed light on his background, he best serves himself by minding his own business when it comes to me. If he doesn’t want me to mention his many, many instances of misleading people, he should reel his periscope in.
Besides, he’s an adult, he can make his own argument and knows how to get ahold of me. Don’t do his dirty work for him.
And oh yeah, if you want to come here and participate, you’re going to need to use your real name, just like you’d need to on Facebook, since you didn’t address any of this over there where it happened and instead decided to come here and hide behind a pseudonym.
I don’t care where you post from, that’s between you and your boss.
Look forward to having you share your relevant thoughts and experience.
I think the important lesson here is be careful who you defend based on their perceived background and accomplishments. Watch out for false idols and always look behind the curtain.
It’s nice to come by here, under your “Cerise” name. I’m guessing you’re afraid of using your real name or posting it in the P&S room; it speaks volumes to who you really are.
It’s quite apparent you didn’t read the whole thread and you are cherry picking (pun intended) one part of one comment and you assumed it was some sort of vile attack. Truth of the matter is, the person you are talking about pointed that comment directly at SSD and its author.
If you want drama & ill willed comments take it back to FB where your friends can “Pat” you on the back for supporting them…
BTW – I wish I had lunch breaks that long…
I’ll tell you what’s pretty poor form, posting cryptic accuses toons from work while in the taxpayer’s dime.
Accusations
SSD, why don’t you put an edit button on here?
Because guys like ‘cerise’ here would alter their posts after they said something they regretted. So no edit button for you.
Just to chime in here, we’ve been caught in the middle of this building gear in Los Angeles. SSD put up a post about our Speed Clip line which tries to incorporate military modularity with a professional LE appearance. We are serving some of the best tactical organizations here, while also watching them serve under the spotlight of the media capital of the world. I’ve been a reserve in the military and in law enforcement, and it gives you a respect for the forces that influence tactics and gear development. One of our products was approved through the entire department chain and at the last step, the Chief of Police himself made a major cosmetic change to the product – and as much as the soldier side of me cringed, I completely understand and acknowledge that he made the right decision. Great discussion topic SSD!