Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst...r/?page=entire
Norm Stamper certainly made mistakes as Chief of Police in Seattle, but he was willing to learn from them. I think he offers a few important insights in the article linked above:
1) That although the 1999 "Battle in Seattle" should have served as a primer of what NOT to do for law enforcement agencies, the opposite has happened. It has ushered in an era of increased militarization of law enforcement. He writes: "The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy."
2) That militaristic policing causes violence. "My support for a militaristic solution caused all hell to break loose," Stamper says. He's right. It did.
3) That 9/11, or more specifically the government's heavy-handed response and exploitation of public fears, has fueled the current crisis in law enforcement. "[T]he federal government began providing military equipment and training even to some of the smallest rural departments ... Everyday policing is characterized by a SWAT mentality, every other 911 call a military mission."
The whole article is worth a read. One thing I have been thinking about that he didn't touch on is the way that the proliferation of non-lethal (or really, less-lethal) weapons has made police forces considerably more aggressive and considerably less concerned about consequences, even in this day when almost everything is captured on video. These tools that were supposed to allow officers to defend themselves without killing people have instead become offensive weapons deployed to secure compliance (or, it seems, sometimes just as a show of dominance) rather than to secure the officer's safety.
|
Yes, what you say above (I bolded and underlined) seems so true to me. This whole thing about non-lethality of these kinds of weapons (and they are weapons) has given license to using them in situations not calling for them at all- and the public has accepted this. There is new information that the manufacturers of stun-guns like Tasers (a brand name) not giving the full story about how they can kill a person. They have not really given police department the real data!! So, departments have been developing crowd control and even perp apprehension tactics based upon faulty information. Then there is the fact that some (and it is a very small number) of police have aggressive personality traits that point to the fact that they shouldn't even be in law enforcement.
I wonder too- about all the TV cop shows and the displays of force used by characters that we see continually. How has that influenced the public about these tactics? I have heard from cops that they would be fired on the spot for a lot of the things TV cop heros do.
This may sound hoaky, but, I do respect police and I think they have a very difficult job. I support whatever equipment and training they receive for their own protection. However, something is really wrong here with the lack of training about differences in crowds like citizens exercising protest in a non-violent manner and that is not trying to stick it to cops.
So many of the incidences over the last couple of months just seem like waiting out dispersal by police would have been the best thing. Yes, they need to make certain emergency routes are open, but why don't they send in officers to "talk" through what is needed to keep people safe first- kind of like officers trained in negotiation with hostage situations. I might be very naive here, but, it just seems like the entire police crowd control of un-armed citizens needs to be overhauled and updated. And these kinds of weapons have influenced more responses of a
first-aggressive nature based upon the false premise of these weapons are not harmful.
Could be talking up my own rear- I do not have any law enforcement expertise at all.
I think with what happened at UCD and has gone viral may help in law enforcement having to re-evaluate these tactics and make a lot of changes.