http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/howard/bal-md.ho.raid01mar01,0,2457227.story?page=1

On a January morning, Howard County police learned that two of their cruisers had been broken into while parked in an Elkridge neighborhood. Someone stole penlights, a Police Department baseball cap, citation books - and a high-powered rifle and nearly 150 rounds of ammunition.

The next day, a SWAT team raided Mike Hasenei's nearby mobile home.

Hasenei says an officer hit him in the face with a shield, knocked him to the ground and handcuffed him and his wife. Police shot one of the family dogs.

But no weapon was found. And Hasenei has added his voice to those raising questions about the use of SWAT teams by Maryland police agencies.

According to the court documents filed in support of the "no-knock" warrant, police said an informant told them that Hasenei's stepson, Michael Smith (http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/sports/michael-smith-PESPT006838.topic) Jr., who also lives in the neighborhood, and a friend of Smith's might have been trying to sell an assault rifle the day after the theft from the cruiser.


The police are so anxious to show their military prowess...the retarded part is the affadavit shows that he "might have" not even that he did...so much for that constitution.

I think a lot of the problem is that local law enforcement has become so militarized lately. With so much force and firepower (not to mention itchy trigger fingers), they're becoming more and more a blunt instrument rather than the scalpel they're supposed to be. When mistakes are made, the consequences are magnified commensurately.

The Sheriff's department in the county a few miles to my West literally has an armored assault vehicle that looks like a tank. Why?!

Street cred?

Seriously, it's probably to keep personnel safe when trying to raid meth labs. When those things explode, its no joke.

Might be another good argument for legalization, though,

It's not like they roll into the singlewides with the tank.

After what happened in North Hollywood, I wouldn't blame police if they had an Apache.

How would that really help? Keep one hovering over every bank at all times?

No, but a hellfire sure would make body armor a moot point....

Because spraying North Hollywood with that would be so much safer?

The point is not about the Apache, but that they need to be ready for anything...

A Man in San Diego went on a joy ride in a Tank, what could the police have done if he had shells ready to fire?

Because spraying North Hollywood with that would be so much safer?


Why yes...when a hellfire detonates it's a very tiny explosion usually with just enough oomph to kill a person...all of that 300 meters being danger close stuff is just hype created by those ANGLICO types looking for sympathy.

The point is not about the Apache, but that they need to be ready for anything...

A Man in San Diego went on a joy ride in a Tank, what could the police have done if he had shells ready to fire?

Perhaps we could give them patriot missiles just in case someone goes for a joyride in a B52. Prepared for anything I say...anything

The point is not about the Apache, but that they need to be ready for anything...

A Man in San Diego went on a joy ride in a Tank, what could the police have done if he had shells ready to fire?

Ready for anything? That North Hollywood deal was over in about an hour from start to finish. By the time they'd know they needed to fly an Apache in to spray down some extra collateral damage, it would've been over.

Unless you want the military patrolling the streets, how do you expect to they'd ever be "ready for anything"?

I don't see how escalating a war in the streets helps anyone (except the private security firms and defense contractors).

Ready for anything? That North Hollywood deal was over in about an hour from start to finish. By the time they'd know they needed to fly an Apache in to spray down some extra collateral damage, it would've been over.

Unless you want the military patrolling the streets, how do you expect to they'd ever be "ready for anything"?

I don't see how escalating a war in the streets helps anyone (except the private security firms and defense contractors).


I think your wrong, and you also evaded the question.

Perhaps we could give them patriot missiles just in case someone goes for a joyride in a B52. Prepared for anything I say...anything


That has never happened.. The Joy ride in the tank happened.

I think your wrong, and you also evaded the question.

What? That you think we should spend untold billions/trillions to militarize every local police and sheriff's department, resulting in increases in these innocent victims, because one guy took an old tank for a joyride one time?

Seriously?

That has never happened.. The Joy ride in the tank happened.

The tank thing never happened until it happened and you know what else has never happened? An evil superhero has never landed in LA and crushed buildings.

So you both would rather the Police NOT be ready for any realistic possible situation?

I bet you would feel differently if that hardware saved your life, when the police officer with his handgun couldn't.

Then you would be real appreciative.

Bottom line is, if the police have an incident in which something like the tank thing happens, they should from that day forward be more prepared to deal with a similar event.

This thread started because the police used excessive force to subdue innocent civilians and Jedd wants to give them bigger guns. They shot the guy's dog for god's sake.

If that is not out of touch with reality I don't know a better example.

So some cops are bad, and therefore all cops should not be prepared?

Bush abused his power, so should Obama have none?

So you both would rather the Police NOT be ready for any realistic possible situation?

I bet you would feel differently if that hardware saved your life, when the police officer with his handgun couldn't.

Then you would be real appreciative.

Bottom line is, if the police have an incident in which something like the tank thing happens, they should from that day forward be more prepared to deal with a similar event.


Jedd, your argument is getting ridiculous. Should the police have an F-15 ready for the possibility that someone just might grab an F-4 Phantom and decide to go on a strafing run? You say what if the guy with the tank had fired the gun? What if he did and it was at the police tank and he scored a direct hit totally wiping out the police tank and then maybe the police could get two tanks to respond but what if the guy blows up two? Then the police need 3 or they need an apache because that will stop him unless he shoots it down with the .50 caliber on the tank or maybe he might have an old russian SA-7 missile or something else or what if he was to steal a surplus antiarcraft tank like one of those quad 23mm ones or he could even hav a flame thrower tank which then we need to get the police firefighting foam because flamethrowers are petrol based or what if the guy had stolen a bycicle we need to give all police officers portable motorcycles or what if the police assault someone who is innocent because they didn't investigate the case correctly and they shoot the guys dog as it runs to hide on a bed?

I can write more senseless run on than you can!

I never said anything about removing power or less cops. Please don't add meaning to my words.

I said these cops fucked up and your response was to give them bigger badder guns. You're out of touch with reality.

Jedd, your argument is getting ridiculous. Should the police have an F-15 ready for the possibility that someone just might grab an F-4 Phantom and decide to go on a strafing run? You say what if the guy with the tank had fired the gun? What if he did and it was at the police tank and he scored a direct hit totally wiping out the police tank and then maybe the police could get two tanks to respond but what if the guy blows up two? Then the police need 3 or they need an apache because that will stop him unless he shoots it down with the .50 caliber on the tank or maybe he might have an old russian SA-7 missile or something else or what if he was to steal a surplus antiarcraft tank like one of those quad 23mm ones or he could even hav a flame thrower tank which then we need to get the police firefighting foam because flamethrowers are petrol based or what if the guy had stolen a bycicle we need to give all police officers portable motorcycles or what if the police assault someone who is innocent because they didn't investigate the case correctly and they shoot the guys dog as it runs to hide on a bed?

I can write more senseless run on than you can!


If a situation arises that the police are not prepared to handle, they should be more prepared in the future. Simple as that!

Your post is BS because it is assuming that my argument is they should be prepared for absolutely anything possible within the realm of thought, which I am not.

Being prepared for anything that is possible based on past events, is not an unreasonable level of readiness, and completely justifies having a tank like vehicle for a Police station.

I never said anything about removing power or less cops. Please don't add meaning to my words.

I said these cops fucked up and your response was to give them bigger badder guns. You're out of touch with reality.

No... you lack reading comprehension. I never responded to the original post. I responded to San's bewilderment at a Police Tank like vehicle.

I remember a few years ago some whacko armored up and armed a bulldozer in his garage and took it on a spree through Granby (one of our mountain communities). The police could do nothing to stop him before he flattened some buildings. I think he finally stopped when the bulldozer was immobilized by debris and decided to off himself inside the cab.

Ah, found a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

I don't think an armored car would have helped the police in this case. The National Guard was put on standby to bring in anti-tank weaponry, but he could have done a lot more damage by the time they got there had he not gotten stuck.

The lesson being: Idiots will stop themselves far more effictively than the police ever could.

If a situation arises that the police are not prepared to handle, they should be more prepared in the future. Simple as that!

Your post is BS because it is assuming that my argument is they should be prepared for absolutely anything possible within the realm of thought, which I am not.

Being prepared for anything that is possible based on past events, is not an unreasonable level of readiness, and completely justifies having a tank like vehicle for a Police station.

It is completely unreasonable. By this the NYC police should have F-15s just in case a bunch of terrorists hijack planes and head for NYC. How many times have people stolen tanks and drove around in them in a city? The lesson of the LA bank robbery was police cars should be equipped with a semi-automatic .308 weapon not that the police need Apache helicopters.

If a situation arises that the police are not prepared to handle, they should be more prepared in the future. Simple as that!

Your post is BS because it is assuming that my argument is they should be prepared for absolutely anything possible within the realm of thought, which I am not.

Being prepared for anything that is possible based on past events, is not an unreasonable level of readiness, and completely justifies having a tank like vehicle for a Police station.

Actually you're lost and creating bs out of thin air here. There is already a force in place to deal with such matters. National Guard ring a bell?

Now quit trying to backfill your weak position.

I remember a few years ago some whacko armored up and armed a bulldozer in his garage and took it on a spree through Granby (one of our mountain communities). The police could do nothing to stop him before he flattened some buildings. I think he finally stopped when the bulldozer was immobilized by debris and decided to off himself inside the cab.

Ah, found a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

I don't think an armored car would have helped the police in this case. The National Guard was put on standby to bring in anti-tank weaponry, but he could have done a lot more damage by the time they got there had he not gotten stuck.

An armored vehicle is more useful in breaching exterior walls to allow access to the interior of a building. It can be used to breach the wall and to give officer eyes on the inside immediately while keeping the officers inside safe.

It is also used when there is a bomb scare to move closer to the bomb to release the robot, and to control it from within the armored vehicle.

It is completely unreasonable. By this the NYC police should have F-15s just in case a bunch of terrorists hijack planes and head for NYC. How many times have people stolen tanks and drove around in them in a city? The lesson of the LA bank robbery was police cars should be equipped with a semi-automatic .308 weapon not that the police need Apache helicopters.


The Air is controlled by the military, no need for police to scamble jets when the military can do it efficiently and much faster.

Your reaching to prove me wrong... but your examples are idiotic.

Actually you're lost and creating bs out of thin air here. There is already a force in place to deal with such matters. National Guard ring a bell?

Now quit trying to backfill your weak position.

So the National guard should be called for a Bank robbery? or a hostage crisis standoff? Or a Bomb diffusion?

Uh uh, I disagree.

OMFG...circle talk

Armored vehicles can be employed in many situations- active shooters, snipers, barricaded suspects, hostage situations, high-risk warrants, riots, and dealing with dangerous fugitives. They can be used for scouting, probing, diversion, cover, containment, victim rescue, intelligence gathering, placement of personnel and equipment, bringing in ammunition, and acting as a launch platform for less lethal agents and chemicals.

An armored vehicle can also be used to block garage doors so a bad guy can't drive out. A camera scope can be mounted on the ram's end to see into a building, and if it turns out the building's layout prohibits using the ram against a door, it could be used to take out a wall.

Armored vehicles are typically deployed for calls related to hostile environments, such as a barricaded suspect threatening to kill either themselves or someone else; having an up-to-date armored vehicle in a ballistic situation is a comfort, Hawkins said.

http://www.evliving.com/2008/10/01/1408/chandler-deploys-new-armored-vehicle/

In the north hollywood bank shootout, the Police were lucky enough to find a bank armored car driving by and got them to help in rescuing injured officers which were down in line of sight of the gunmen. If it were not for that Armored car, those officers would be dead.

There is obviously a reason for a police department to have an armored vehicle.

Years ago in the town I grew up in the bank was robbed. Standing in line behind the guy who was robbing the bank was this old lady who had just bought a gallon of paint at the hardware store before she walked over to the bank. The guy pulled a gun, said this is a robbery, the lady hit him in the back of the head with the paint can knocking him unconscious thereby foiling the robbery.

Since then the town has issued paint cans to the police in lieu of guns. Good reasoning!

Years ago in the town I grew up in the bank was robbed. Standing in line behind the guy who was robbing the bank was this old lady who had just bought a gallon of paint at the hardware store before she walked over to the bank. The guy pulled a gun, said this is a robbery, the lady hit him in the back of the head with the paint can knocking him unconscious thereby foiling the robbery.

Since then the town has issued paint cans to the police in lieu of guns. Good reasoning!

You are hopeless... Maybe if you were the cop shot and injured who your fellow officers couldn't reach because of gunfire you would understand why that armored vehicle is necessary.

Right now, you are just being childish.

You are hopeless... Maybe if you were the cop shot and injured who your fellow officers couldn't reach because of gunfire you would understand why that armored vehicle is necessary.

Right now, you are just being childish.


Yeah because I have no idea what it's like to be under fire or a cop.

Yeah because I have no idea what it's like to be under fire or a cop.


In war, if your enemy is some taliban with no helicopters... do we use helicopters?

If your enemy has no tanks, do we go without using our tanks?

Why are you willing for our officers to be in more danger because YOU don't believe they need something?

Just because you and San have some hatred for police officers based on a few bad apples, you have gone off the deep end. I am a taxpaying citizen, and I have no problem with the LAPD having a goddamn armored vehicle if it saves citizens or police officers lives, and puts them at less risk overall.

Whatever your reasoning for this Bullshit argument, It is completely idiotic to believe that you have the right to tell the experts what equipment they need, when you as a member of the armed forces, relied on overwhelming force. The point in war is the same as with the police. To minimize casualties, and to increase the chance for success of an operation.

For god sakes, reserve officers work for free and put their lives on the line every day for NO PAY, and you hate police so much, that you could care less that this person might live longer with this hardware.

You're Iranian! I prefer an M40 in war!

Jedd, if you love our new militarized law enforcement so much, why would you want them to get laid off and furloughed left and right while their departments buy military gear?

I can't imagine why we're even arguing about this. Who could possibly see expensive military gear as good prioritization when it affects less than 1% of their work?

You really think tens of thousands of local law enforcement agencies should spent trillions of dollars (that they/we don't have) to buy dumb shit like tanks and military helicopters.

How many jobs could they create with that amount of money, instead of sending people home?

Bottom line, this increasing militarization of law enforcement helps only one group of people: whoever is selling this garbage to them.

Jedd, if you love our new militarized law enforcement so much, why would you want them to get laid off and furloughed left and right while their departments buy military gear?

I can't imagine why we're even arguing about this. Who could possibly see expensive military gear as good prioritization when it affects less than 1% of their work?

You really think tens of thousands of local law enforcement agencies should spent trillions of dollars (that they/we don't have) to buy dumb shit like tanks and military helicopters.

How many jobs could they create with that amount of money, instead of sending people home?

Bottom line, this increasing militarization of law enforcement helps only one group of people: whoever is selling this garbage to them.

Oh please, now its the money? Think of it this way... An armored car costs 100k. I think they can afford 2-3 less police cars in the department.

I don't think you have any concept at all of how much money has been spent on militarizing our law enforcement.

I don't think you have any concept at all of how much money has been spent on militarizing our law enforcement.

I don't think you realize how much I don't care. I like my police strapped

Did you think they weren't "strapped" before?

Just because you and San have some hatred for police officers based on a few bad apples

BTW, don't be a drama queen like Kelraz, trying to make that claim.

I love the police department here. It's a nice area, so they can't put the thugs here. I donate to the local police department every year.

The people I have "hatred" for don't have the right to call themselves police officers.

You are going down the wrong road with me. I simply posted in response to your being shocked by seeing an armored police car. If it bothers you, don't commit a crime.

A police tank is endemic to everything wrong with modern law enforcement. I'm not shocked, I'm disappointed.

Once upon a time, cops walked a beat. They carried a 6 shooter wheel gun, a night stick and some hand cuffs. Perhaps they might also have a tazer or pepper spray. They also have their citation book and a radio. And their badge of course.

That was about it.

Many of those 6 shooters got retired with just holster wear and their former owners were more than happy to have never had to fire a shot in anger.

That was it because that was all they needed. These were people that were/are a part of a community doing a job that society needs to be done, and that was to make sure that there was someone to pick up and continue on with what schools, parents, churches etc should have already instilled. Their presence alone was enough to deter most things and many people knew them by their first names. If there was a need for more, their training handled it. If it was beyond their training, then, and only then, was there a need to call the state militia in. Cops are not soldiers and never were meant to be. If the opposite is true, we might as well have Blackwater manning our police departments.

Perhaps back in those Leave it to Beaver days the country's moral compass wasn't in such piss poor shape so that we didn't need cops riding around in tanks and gunships because they have to serve as someone's one and only lesson on being accountable for ones actions. I dunno. I wasn't alive back then and Leave it to Beaver is just Hollywood fiction, but there was probably just as much crime then as now but it didn't require the firepower being brandished now.

Unless the economic inequality has finally become bad enough where thoughts of police state is becoming reality.

I could see some towns like LA, Chicago, New York and the like having some sort of Armored vehicle. Not a tank with a 155 Cannon on it, but maybe something hardened for riot control and for those *rare* occasions when you need to bust in through a wall in a Hollywood sort of way.

But do I think every police station in the world needs one? Fuck no.

Do I think a certain number of officers, say one per dozen should have something more than a glock? Yeah.

Do they all need belt fed M-249s in the trunk? No.

Do they need an apache gunship? Fuck No

Do the larger cities need a UH-60 Blackhawk or similar aircraft? Sure, never know when some nutjob might hold up the top floor of his old office building. But again, that's for large cities (2-3 Million +)

Trust me, if it ever comes down to it, You'd be surprised just how quick the local national guard can scramble their aircraft.

This thread should not be about police equipment but the shitty police work that was done in this instance. They apparently had no real evidence and just raided this guy because he was the neighbor. That is the real crime.

This thread should not be about police equipment but the shitty police work that was done in this instance.

There have been plenty of those threads. Its pretty well established that there have been alot of cases of police wantingly applying excessive force and negliable restraint. The question is, what is the root of this? The wrong training? The wrong emphesis? Over-empowering the police with military grade training and weapons? Homeland Security and Patriot Act run amoke? Or is it that there is just no where else for our spec-war units to send our troops after they leave the service but these SWAT teams? These are people whose jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan used to be kicking down doors, greasing someone and then asking for forgiveness later, if at all. Police/intelligence work, protective details for celebs/wealthy business people or mercenary outfits like Blackwater offer the only "straight jobs" for these guys.

There have been plenty of those threads. Its pretty well established that there have been alot of cases of police wantingly applying excessive force and negliable restraint. The question is, what is the root of this?


I blame it on Rush Limbaugh and his incendiary, ugly, diatribes; you may be surprised at how many police officers are Rush listeners, getting stirred up as they drink their caffeine filled coffee and eat their sugar filled doughnuts.


I am no longer a Republican though, so I don't have to apologize for saying so. :rolleyes:

Over-empowering the police with military grade training and weapons? Homeland Security and Patriot Act run amoke? Or is it that there is just no where else for our spec-war units to send our troops after they leave the service but these SWAT teams? These are people whose jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan used to be kicking down doors, greasing someone and then asking for forgiveness later, if at all. Police/intelligence work, protective details for celebs/wealthy business people or mercenary outfits like Blackwater offer the only "straight jobs" for these guys.

This has been my contention several times in the past, but people funny about even suggesting that maybe these guys with PTSD aren't the best choice for suburban police work.

As for the militarization, I'd love to see some solid numbers on where the money's going. I believe an awful lot of local law enforcement money is going to full-on defense contractors at this point. I've read mainstream articles implying it, but never hard budget numbers.

There have been plenty of those threads. Its pretty well established that there have been alot of cases of police wantingly applying excessive force and negliable restraint. The question is, what is the root of this? The wrong training? The wrong emphesis? Over-empowering the police with military grade training and weapons? Homeland Security and Patriot Act run amoke? Or is it that there is just no where else for our spec-war units to send our troops after they leave the service but these SWAT teams? These are people whose jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan used to be kicking down doors, greasing someone and then asking for forgiveness later, if at all. Police/intelligence work, protective details for celebs/wealthy business people or mercenary outfits like Blackwater offer the only "straight jobs" for these guys.

Right but that really has nothing to do with this. It is not so much an issue of why it is happening, but rather why we are allowing it.

Right but that really has nothing to do with this. It is not so much an issue of why it is happening, but rather why we are allowing it.

Your guess is as good as any. Probably because this is not one of those things that gets to be decided on by the voters and/or representatives in Government don't have the ear of the people. Perhaps all the outcry for getting tough on crime has a louder voice than the one questioning strong arm tactics and poor decisions.

You have to consider: for police departments and former soldiers its a good deal since time served in the military counts towards retirement and police departments are getting people experienced in potentially hostile situations which reduces the need for costly training. Sometimes these guys end up in charge and make these utterly overbearing calls. Yes, having a high powered rifle stolen is a big deal in the context that if the person is a total nutjob there is enough rounds in question that could be put down range at officers to require SWAT, but perhaps a little bit more of a background investigation might have been prudent. This is a double black eye for this particular PD because having a squad car broken into with that kind of gear stolen (which implies that it was unattended for quite some time instead of being secured back at the station where it probably belongs)for one is inexcusable and the response was the second wrong with now value of right to be had after. End result is people will get fired and the "victims" will get some hush money.

Hey, in a brief 'fuck you all' moment.

Where the hell did it say any of the involved SWAT officers were military or ex-military. Furthermore, where did it say any of them that may or may not be former military were suffering from PTSD It seems to me, that in the majority of these cases the shitty cops had no connection to the military.

Those are a lot of assumptions you're making. And in many cases completely unjustified. Proof please, otherwise kindly go shut the fuck up.

I agree. Not everyone who served in the Military comes out a hollow shell of a human being, bent on responding with overwhelming force against all people who slight them.

Stop watching Rambo and the Deer Hunter, plzkkthks.

Basic statistics.

Even our military itself admits that they've screwed up the guys on the front lines worse than any time in history. Record usage of anti-depressants and anti-psychotropics.

It's no secret that law enforcement is a perennial favorite next step for a lot of ex-military.

That doesn't necessarily mean you're crazy or your buddy is crazy (or maybe you are!). It is inescapable though that these wars are putting more mentally damaged officers on the streets than ever before.

Basic statistics.

Even our military itself admits that they've screwed up the guys on the front lines worse than any time in history. Record usage of anti-depressants and anti-psychotropics.



The same is true of society in general. Perhaps, because people who serve in the military tend to be a cross section of society, the statistics you quote are reflective of that?

You'd be right they are a cross section, but the crux of it is that the use of various happy pills are disproportionally higher in that group than average at least given what we know. What's that indicative of is a much more complex question that nobody has any hard data on yet.

There are more vets on anti-depressants than there has been in any other war because there was'nt the amount of anti-depressants available in any other war. That along with some retarded notion that feeling pain or anguish over a traumatic situation is simply unacceptable.


When you fight a war it's traumatic, when your friends die in that war you grieve, when you give someone a pill because they are traumatized and grieving and now they are emotionless that is a really bad thing and will probably result in that coming out in a suicide or shooting a dog or beating a person you arrested.

It's ok to feel traumatized, it's ok to grieve, it's ok to feel dpressed by what you saw and who you lost...you're supposed to...it's called healing.

There are more vets on anti-depressants than there has been in any other war because there was'nt the amount of anti-depressants available in any other war. That along with some retarded notion that feeling pain or anguish over a traumatic situation is simply unacceptable.


When you fight a war it's traumatic, when your friends die in that war you grieve, when you give someone a pill because they are traumatized and grieving and now they are emotionless that is a really bad thing and will probably result in that coming out in a suicide or shooting a dog or beating a person you arrested.

It's ok to feel traumatized, it's ok to grieve, it's ok to feel dpressed by what you saw and who you lost...you're supposed to...it's called healing.

Spot on.

Oh, I don't disagree.

It's our fault for letting them get in that position for all these multiple, extended tours. No doubt it would break many of us to be in their shoes.

However, that doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible idea to have them go from urban warfare to urban peace keeping. Can't we find them other jobs?

Not all of us War vets go into Peace keeping. However for the majority of mud pounders their training doesn't translate to the civilian sector.

That's true. One of the messages in "The Marine" starring John Cena was that the character was an outstanding Marine, with sniper training, ordinance handling skills, ect, ect. But when put out of the Marines, those skills just didn't translate into the civilian sector.

Maybe the answer is to stay out of these unconscionable wars that drive people crazy, and focus heavily on retention instead. Keep them happy, sane, and utilized in the roles that they're best trained for.

Maybe the answer is to stay out of these unconscionable wars that drive people crazy, and focus heavily on retention instead. Keep them happy, sane, and utilized in the roles that they're best trained for.

Which is to kill the enemy in a war.

That's true. One of the messages in "The Marine" starring John Cena was that the character was an outstanding Marine, with sniper training, ordinance handling skills, ect, ect. But when put out of the Marines, those skills just didn't translate into the civilian sector.

Your fucking kidding...arent you?

Heh I hope he is, I walked out of that one. I didn't even get sat all the way down before I was turning around and walking out.

Which is to kill the enemy in a war.

We need a standing army of people expert at that particular job, even in peacetime. So, that's great.

Not so great for breaking down domestic doors though, apparently.

We need a standing army of people expert at that particular job, even in peacetime. So, that's great.

Not so great for breaking down domestic doors though, apparently.

Hey, I'm in agreement here. I am greatly disheartened by the way police agencies have taken, in some circumstances, responding to calls or moving on things with little or no investigative work. Most people who come out of the military and those that come out of combat are reliable, act in a professional manner and can be trusted to perform in a way that will respect the rights of those they are confronted with.

This is more of a failure of those in command positions in the police department and of the SOP (standard operating procedure) of those departments, not so much of the individual officer at the street level.

Timely: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/06/generals.ptsd/index.html

If you took the experience and know how that we have now, and applied it to previous wars I think you would have similar numbers of troops affected etc etc. PTSD hasn't changed a whit because of these two wars. The fact that we acknowledge it and treat it like we should is the change. And for that matter, the changes in the military's stance on combat stress is bleeding over into the private sector and proffesions like the police are getting the help they need too.

And you have yet to show me where soldiers with PTSD have caused most of these police mishaps.

From the Cops that I know that are military (National Guard) or used to be military, the only ones that act like douchebags do shit jobs in the Army. Very very far removed from Spec Ops types that you seem so angry at.

I very firmly contend that 99% of cops who are former military that snap and do stupid shit are going to not be PTSD sufferers or ex spec ops from the front lines but little bitches who used to be REMFs and shoveled shit in Louisiana during the war.

And I think Elemak is correct.

I read a good magazine article about this in 2007 or 2008, that had numbers on exactly this issue. I'm not sure if I can find it now though.

The numbers themselves are pretty difficult to find. They aren't readily available without some non-trivial research.

The impossible question goes both ways though. Do you have proof that these whacked out guys on anti-psychotropic drugs aren't getting into our law enforcement agencies?

edit: This isn't the one I read that I was referring to, but this is a decent look at both sides of the issue: http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/charles-remsberg/articles/1671818-exclusive-cops-back-from-the-war-what-problems-do-they-pose/

Elmak is correct. The real spooks don't crack.

And while the John Cena movie was extremely far fetched (Hey lighten up, it's a movie!) the message of people who gain a lot of combat skills and training not being able to apply those same skills in the civilian sector hold true.

Heck, even my MOS, there isn't a lot of call for outside the Army. I haven't turned a wrench on a helicopter in over a decade....

Suppose they are in the police force, and whacked out. The bigger problem to me seems to be the support they receive from superiors, and the lack of investigation following the incidents we're hearing about in the papers. Without fear of consequences, most people will do some pretty terrible things eventually, and it seems that many of these cases involve an officer who makes a mistake and an agency that covers for them. If every cop who shot a dog found themselves in a trail with their job on the line, especially these days, this would be a very different story.

I understand full well the fraternal feelings between officers, and the expectation that they will investigate each other is not a small one. But there's more here than some power hungry officer - what is their leadership doing?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/12/sou.ga.iraq/index.html

At age 26, he is a veteran of three combat tours. The patrol skills he learned on the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah and Sadr City come in handy as he drives his police cruiser around the neighborhoods of his Savannah precinct.

"Some people -- you will be moving around the corner and they will just run," Tucker said as he drove his cruiser. "And you can tell they are favoring one side -- maybe they have a gun."

Or, you know, maybe they have an iPod or a cell phone. Savannah isn't Fallujah!

"I still have the nightmares and wake up and find myself downstairs and I don't know how I got there," Tucker said. "I still see and dream the same things. ... Faces. Kids' faces. People that you have engaged or you have had contact with. ... You see your colleagues blown up. Things like that."

I feel for the guy. He put his ass on the line for us all and got pretty screwed up for it. We need to find a way to help him and do right by him.

At the same time, it seems like a terrible, TERRIBLE idea for him to be rolling around in a patrol car, assuming some kid with an iPod is an insurgent with a gun.

And Fallujah isnt Savannah (BTW I loved Savannah...havent been there since like 1980)

You know what though, the finding yourself standing in a room that is not your bedroom late at night eventually ends, it doesn't go on forever.

This guy is probably going to be better than the guy with no combat experience, he has a very personal understanding of exactly what happens when you squeeze that trigger...once you squeeze it you can't take it back. There are no do overs and I really think that unless you have had to do that your chances of making that "ipod" error is greater with those that haven't.

Don't believe for one second that a combat vet will more likely go for the gun in any situation, what it mostly means is that in a situation that goes bad they will be highly likely to operate with a cool head.