The Militarization of our Police Departments.

[Sparko]

I would assume a serious knife or gunshot wound would not be taken care of at a local 24-hour Walgreen's clinic. But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Cow Poke]

I would assume a serious knife or gunshot wound would not be taken care of at a local 24-hour Walgreen's clinic. But hey, that's just my opinion.

In Texas, we have 24 hour full emergency room / trauma center facilities that are NOT hospitals, and WAY more than the little clinics at Walgreens or HEB or wherever.

[Sparko]

In Texas, we have 24 hour full emergency room / trauma center facilities that are NOT hospitals, and WAY more than the little clinics at Walgreens or HEB or wherever.

Oh yeah I forgot in Texas everyone is a gunslinger and goes around shooting varmints.

[Cow Poke]

Oh yeah I forgot in Texas everyone is a gunslinger and goes around shooting varmints.

"yer honor -- he JUST needed killin"

[seanD]

Marathon County sits in the center of the state of Wisconsin. The rural area has a little more than 135,400 residents and is the heart of the US’ ginseng growing industry. It is also the proud owner of a BearCat armored vehicle, which was used this month to draw a 75-year-old man out of his home because he owed $80,000 to the town in which he was born and raised.

The man, Roger Hoeppner, owns about 20 acres of land that has been the subject of a battle between him and the city in recent years. Earlier this month, nestled between the antique tractors he restores and the wood pallets he uses for his business, were 24 police officers, and, eventually, the armored truck.

“I just don’t understand why a dollar and a half of postage on an envelope that I would have had to pick up at the Wausau post office wouldn’t have done the same thing as 24 officers and an armored vehicle,” Hoeppner told the Guardian.

Marathon County sheriff’s department acquired the BearCat in 2011, though it is better known in the community as a MARV, which stands for Marathon County Response Vehicle. The department also has a bomb truck, sniper van and dive van. Last year, its Swat team responded to nine calls: seven for high risk warrants or subject apprehension, one for a suicidal subject and one for surveillance, according to the department’s annual report from 2013.

How the police will classify this incident is still unclear, though Hoeppner’s lawyer said he is looking into it.

...

The same day as the police intervention, Hoeppner paid out the sum, with officers escorting him to the bank he said he has been going to for 50 years. He said the incident depleted his 401k and caused his wife Marjorie to go to the hospital because of distress. “The United States is not supposed to terrorize its hardworking people,” Hoeppner said.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-property-fine

...

[Teallaura]

[myth]

...

I'm not sure why this is even comment-worthy, based on the article alone. There's very little information about what sort of action they were there to take, nor any other information that would indicate why the police showed up in such numbers.

Typical media sensationalism at it's finest.

[Paprika]

Well if they're looking to alienate the people they're on the right path.

[myth]

Well if they're looking to alienate the people they're on the right path.

Right. Because, despite the long court battle, this kindly old man had no idea he was supposed to pay the monies owed? I mean, the city had to sue him to collect on the fees - but he says that a letter in the mail could have convinced him to pay. He's not playing the victim at all.

The article doesn't provide, like I said earlier, very much information. This information we would need to know if it was reasonable to bring an armored vehicle and 24 officers. I'm not saying it was justified, but it easily could have been. Consider that they were apparently there on a court order to seize items of the man's property to satisfy the debt (including large farm equipment). Had this man made statements in the past about what he'd do if officers arrived to do the same? Did they have knowledge of firearms he owned? I'm just saying, the article doesn't provide a complete picture, but everyone here seems willing to ignore that.

I'd also like to point out that, even though they were there to seize his property, they apparently decided to hold off on doing so and let him pay the debt (now that he realized he really had to). What, no points to the police for being reasonable on that matter? I thought not.

[Paprika]

My post wasn't about justification, but about appearance. Being a police officer , you should be aware that though a justified action appearing in an sufficiently negative light will damage the relations between the police force and the citizens.

[myth]

My post wasn't about justification, but about appearance. Being a police officer , you should be aware that though a justified action appearing in an sufficiently negative light will damage the relations between the police force and the citizens.

Ok, then. I did respond in haste, so I hope I did not offend.

I am, unfortunately, aware. I just get frustrated, because I have to routinely make decisions which expose myself to more risk in order to avoid that negative publicity. It amounts to individual officers shouldering extra risk to their personal safety because the community lacks understanding of the issues at stake.

An example: I am prohibited by policy from wear gloves unless it is cold outside, or I am driving a vehicle. Why? Because admin doesn't like the negative image of cops showing up to 'hot' calls with gloves on. The downside? When I found a needle while frisking a drug addict last week (not wearing my gloves because of said policy). I heighten my own risk of skin punctures by contaminated objects because the public might consider wearing gloves 'aggressive'.

[Teallaura]

Right. Because, despite the long court battle, this kindly old man had no idea he was supposed to pay the monies owed? I mean, the city had to sue him to collect on the fees - but he says that a letter in the mail could have convinced him to pay. He's not playing the victim at all.

The article doesn't provide, like I said earlier, very much information. This information we would need to know if it was reasonable to bring an armored vehicle and 24 officers. I'm not saying it was justified, but it easily could have been. Consider that they were apparently there on a court order to seize items of the man's property to satisfy the debt (including large farm equipment). Had this man made statements in the past about what he'd do if officers arrived to do the same? Did they have knowledge of firearms he owned? I'm just saying, the article doesn't provide a complete picture, but everyone here seems willing to ignore that.

I'd also like to point out that, even though they were there to seize his property, they apparently decided to hold off on doing so and let him pay the debt (now that he realized he really had to). What, no points to the police for being reasonable on that matter? I thought not.

FYI: 'Long court battle' doesn't necessarily mean the guy knew anything about it - they (court/lawyers) could have thought he'd been notified and was just not showing up (it happens). He could legitimately have not known despite there being proceedings. Not saying that was or was not the case, just that it is quite possible to do and does happen occasionally.

A SWAT team for a civil case, however, is really hard to see a justification for. Maybe there is one and we just have insufficient info but it would have to be one heck of a good one.

The PR guys are probably still banging their collective heads on the wall...

[Teallaura]

Ok, then. I did respond in haste, so I hope I did not offend.

I am, unfortunately, aware. I just get frustrated, because I have to routinely make decisions which expose myself to more risk in order to avoid that negative publicity. It amounts to individual officers shouldering extra risk to their personal safety because the community lacks understanding of the issues at stake.

An example: I am prohibited by policy from wear gloves unless it is cold outside, or I am driving a vehicle. Why? Because admin doesn't like the negative image of cops showing up to 'hot' calls with gloves on. The downside? When I found a needle while frisking a drug addict last week (not wearing my gloves because of said policy). I heighten my own risk of skin punctures by contaminated objects because the public might consider wearing gloves 'aggressive'.

On the (not at all) bright side, the first officer to end up with HIV or Hepatitis will have a lovely lawsuit and the PR guys will be banging their heads again.

Gloves are aggressive? Your department is top heavy, isn't it? That sounds like an admin with way too little to do...

[myth]

FYI: 'Long court battle' doesn't necessarily mean the guy knew anything about it - they (court/lawyers) could have thought he'd been notified and was just not showing up (it happens). He could legitimately have not known despite there being proceedings. Not saying that was or was not the case, just that it is quite possible to do and does happen occasionally.

A SWAT team for a civil case, however, is really hard to see a justification for. Maybe there is one and we just have insufficient info but it would have to be one heck of a good one.

The PR guys are probably still banging their collective heads on the wall...

I hear ya on the notification issue. Unlikely, but possible.

I didn't read that they actually sent the SWAT team, though. I read about an armored vehicle and a lot of officers, so I imagine the media would have mentioned a SWAT team because of the added negative PR factor. But I digress. I was (and am) irked by sensationalist reporting like this example. I understand the reporters gotta make their money, I just wish they didn't (so often) do it at other people's expense.

On the (not at all) bright side, the first officer to end up with HIV or Hepatitis will have a lovely lawsuit and the PR guys will be banging their heads again.

Gloves are aggressive? Your department is top heavy, isn't it? That sounds like an admin with way too little to do...

You might have hit the nail on the head, there. I should be fair -- overall, they do a good job. And I have tremendous respect for some of them. But we still end up with stuff in policy that makes me scratch my head.

The part about 'aggressive gloves' is my interpretation, but I don't know why else it's in policy. Like sunglasses. We can wear them while directing traffic and driving a car, but no other times.

Now, I may or may not abide by both of those policies at ALL times...but that's beside the point.

[Teallaura]