TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:The operating environment has definitely changed - I'm not sure what time frame you were sworn, but 40 years ago, crack cocaine was not a rampant problem. The public generally supported the officer, ...

Do you think human beings in general or criminals have changed since the days of the James Gang, Bonnie and Clyde, and Al Capone?

Criminals were plenty violent and without conscience 40 years ago, 90 years ago, and further back. If it wasn't crack, it was heroin, meth, and booze during Prohibition.

I was a teenager 40 years ago. While the public generally supported the way that police dealt with presumed criminals, it was widely acknowledged that many police officers were corrupt and brutal. Bull Connor, anyone?

http://www.gangresearch.net/GangResearc ... contxt.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Kind of an interesting twist to the argument...

When I go to google images and type in swat, I see majority of the folks wearing goggles...I see a few in the "ski mask."

I see very few with a mask and no eye pro, there are some..

That is...if goggle images is the definitive source on SWAT

seamusTX wrote:Do you think human beings in general or criminals have changed since the days of the James Gang, Bonnie and Clyde, and Al Capone?

Maybe not the depravity aspect. But from a technological aspect, a tactical aspect, and a capability aspect, absolutely - do you not?

Militarizing the police is nothing more than a way for immoral politicians and other public servants to end around the Posse Comitatus Act.

gigag04 wrote:But from a technological aspect, a tactical aspect, and a capability aspect, absolutely - do you not?

Before 1935, criminals could and did buy machine guns at hardware stores. Short shotguns and rifles were also legal until used in the commission of a crime.

I don't think the criminal gangs of the Prohibition era were less intelligent or well organized than the drug gangs of today. Some of the bootleggers were the equivalent of a $1 billion enterprise in modern terms (as drugs are now).

If there is any kind of technical or tactical "race," the regular police are at least even in terms of communications, weapons, and body armor.

BTW, I am not fundamentally opposed to police SWAT teams and have not expressed such a sentiment. SWAT teams have their role to play.

What bothers me is the same thing that Charles Cotton has mentioned: that some police officers feel that they are a rank above the general public, whom they incorrectly call "civilians," and in particular that "collateral damage" of innocent parties is just one of those things that happens.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, the guy was obviously an old coot. He may have needed someone in authority to set him down and tell him to back off and follow the civil legal process, which he should have understood. Maybe he was getting senile. Now he's conveniently dead and out of everyone's hair.

- Jim

gigag04 wrote:If we are considering google the authoritative source on swat:

Those aren't protecting their eyes, just keeping the lettering on their helmets from getting scratched.

seamusTX wrote:Getting back to the subject of this thread, the guy was obviously an old coot. He may have needed someone in authority to set him down and tell him to back off and follow the civil legal process, which he should have understood. Maybe he was getting senile. Now he's conveniently dead and out of everyone's hair. - Jim

One of the original points questioned the manner of serving of the arrest warrant. How and when it was served should have considered the safety of the LEOs and well as Mr. John Morneau. In retrospect that the LEOs didn't make a good decision. The LEO had guns pointed at them and Mr. Lawyer had guns pointed at himself.

I just wonder if they ever called and said "Mr. Morneau" we have an arrest warrant for you. Why don't you come down to the police station and we'll straighten this out. If he was in his right mind, he would have called his lawyer, arranged for bail, and he would be home in time for dinner. Mr. Morneau may have been an old koot, but according to his neighbors he was friendly.

Now that he's conveniently dead and out of everyone's hair, the whole incident will be buried along with him.

longtooth wrote:It is all summed up in the one fact. He pointed 2 guns at LEOs. It does not matter if the warent was for traffic or bank robbery, he pointed 2 guns at the officers.

I would call that an allegation, not a fact. Mr. Morneau can't give his versin of what happened. Th enews doesn't have to say "allegedly" because he won't be charged with a crime. No suing for libel.

I like what Charles Cotton said. We should all worry about that. Small towns have military surplus vehicles and swat teams. I read a report about how many times swat teams are used for warrants. Not just hostages or kidnappg or barricades, but just because someone might have a marijuana plant in the garage.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the report or play wiht the map. Looks to me like police wind up hurt as often as suspects.

There are Police that are exclusively concerned with Public Safety. I like them.
There are Police that are exclusively concerned with being the Police. I don't really like them.
Fortunately for me, I have seen far more of the first category than I have of the second.

Purplehood wrote:There are Police that are exclusively concerned with Public Safety. I like them.
There are Police that are exclusively concerned with being the Police. I don't really like them.
Fortunately for me, I have seen far more of the first category than I have of the second.

Yes, for now......but I worry that a combination of cadets from the "ME" generation... combined with current attitudes/training (leaning towards paramilitary) will result in further erosion. Not a good thing....IMO.


Or maybe its all just "Progressive Policing" these days.........

Remember too that we are producing more battle-trained soldiers, who come home looking for a career. Their background leads many to law enforcement. Inevitably some will try to mold their units toward what worked in the military.

Seems like the NCOs go into law enforcement, the officers go into politics. Have you noticed all the current candidates who are recently retired young military officers?
Overall I'm OK with both, especially the latter.

flintknapper wrote:

Purplehood wrote:There are Police that are exclusively concerned with Public Safety. I like them.
There are Police that are exclusively concerned with being the Police. I don't really like them.
Fortunately for me, I have seen far more of the first category than I have of the second.

Yes, for now......but I worry that a combination of cadets from the "ME" generation... combined with current attitudes/training (leaning towards paramilitary) will result in further erosion. Not a good thing....IMO.


Or maybe its all just "Progressive Policing" these days.........

Of which training do you speak?

Rex B wrote:Remember too that we are producing more battle-trained soldiers, who come home looking for a career. Their background leads many to law enforcement. Inevitably some will try to mold their units toward what worked in the military.

This has been going on since the Vietnam war, probably even further back. I think that today's hiring standards for most departments are tougher than back then. This is probably an exaggeration, but in the 1960s I think the primary requirement to be hired as an LA County Sheriff Deputy was to have survived a combat tour in Vietnam. Job qualifications were based more on physical attributes rather than educational, mental or pychological factors.

At 53, I have noticed the same trend in militarizing our police. I think Charles hit it on the head fair and square. I also worry where this is leading. People make mistakes and power corrupts. That slide is especially short if you have already been trained to view citizens as "civilians" whose lives are of lesser importance than your own.

Saw this on the news.

http://www.ktbs.com/news/25467729/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The medical examiner in the investigation into the death of north Caddo Parish attorney John Morneau, who was shot and killed by a Miller County, Ark., sheriff's deputy two weeks ago, has made an about-face when it comes to saying where Morneau was shot.

Morneau's first death certificate said he was shot in the back. Miller County Coroner Eddie Hawkins Jr. has now issued a new one that indicates Morneau, 71, was shot in the chest.

OK.

You don't want to get crosswise with the law in that part of the country.

- Jim