Tiananmen or Tiki?

Thanks in no small part to the cooperation of Mother Nature, who provided us with sunny skies and temperatures upwards of 88-90 degrees, yesterday's Tiki Bar opening was great fun. Personally, I had a chance to catch up with a bunch of friends I hadn't seen in years, and I finally met the mother of Jamie Dean, the army sergeant who was murdered in 2006 by Maryland police.

Unfortunately, however, this otherwise enjoyable experience was clouded with the acrid stench of the state as it hovered amongst thousands of peaceful partiers. Here are some shots of the police presence along our quarter-mile walk to Tiki Bar.

Yes, that right there is an armored truck, replete with bullet-proof turret. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that there wasn't so much as a scratch on this thing. I suppose that at least indicates it isn't used much, which is a good thing. But if the rationale for state and federal funding of these vehicles for police departments is to protect against prospective terrorist attacks, perhaps we could at least restrict their use to actual defense against -- oh, I don't know -- invaders? Instead, the government is apparently content to practice on the rest of us in the meantime.

Above you have a picture of St. Mary's County Sheriff Tim Cameron -- one of the principal defendants named in the Dean family's recently filed wrongful death suit -- yukking it up with Calvert County SWAT officers on the county's "special operations" gunboat. Good to know our interstate agents have such a fine collegial relationship.

Here we get a visit from your friendly neighborhood Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agents, who remind us:

And because everyone knows a day on the water just isn't any fun without an empty cooler, it's these types of decrees by the state that allow DNR to seize and board your vessel without probable cause -- anytime it likes.

Can't forget the U.S. Coast Guard!

Nice little county-state-federal orgy.

Hey...how'd she get in here? Moving on...

I'm not exactly sure why we need to militarize our police departments when use of the military would be appropriate in the event of an actual invasion of the country. Given that assumption, militarizing the police -- just look at their uniforms and haircuts -- can be viewed as little more than a justification to continually intimidate and harass ordinary folks.

When I asked one of the higher ranking police officers where the fugitives were, he looked at me with a blank stare. Then I said, You know, where are all the hostages? After he shot me another perplexed look, I quite simply asked what the hell all the SWAT teams were doing on hand when they're supposedly only to be used in the event of an imminent threat to the community. His response? They're here "just in case," because it's better to be "safe than sorry."

My response: Safe from whom?

Comments

[benpal]

Don't be so harsh on them. They just wanted to proudly show you what your taxes are used for.

[Wolf]

I see... I see... Trevor Bothwell... being pulled over and issued traffic tickets every 10 feet for the rest of his life...

I give you credit, brother. You aren't afraid to rattle cages.

[trevor]

And if the inherent truth of that statement isn't indicative of the authority these cops have today, nothing is.

[Chris McNelis, Broker]

Hye, that's my condo in the background of the shot of the Police Boat with Amie putting up her hair in the foreground. Do I get royalties for that?

haha

Chris

[Frank]

We can thank 8 years of the Bush administration dogma for this 'trickle down' effect and our own general population for not standing up and opposing it. How far does this have to go before people wake up?

[Wolf]

Look, I'll be the first to admit, I am completely disillusioned with the Bush administration and feel like I've been lied to at every turn. BUT... I don't condemn his administration for the militarization of the police force in this country. I strongly believe that our first responders SHOULD have the tools they need to fight any local threat to national security until the cavalry arrives.

(Note: I do NOT (!!) believe that a bar opening on the Eastern Shore constitutes a threat to national security, and therefore, does not require the show of force that was displayed, based on the pictures I've seen here.)

No, if anything I praise the admistration for providing funds so that local governments can have the tools they'll need if, God forbid, the shit hits the fan.

The blame in all this lies squarely at the feet of LOCAL governments who are empowering their local police forces to abuse their power by roughing up citizens who aren't resisting, using tasers on children, using SWAT teams to serve warrants on non-violent offenders, and to conduct searches without probable cause under the guise of "keeping our children safe from guns".

[Frank]

Wolf, regarding your if the shit hits the fan statement...isn't that what the National Guard (our state militias) is for? Oh wait a minute, most of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to 'The Decider'.

[Frank]

Wolf, I'd also like to mention that the 'trickle down' effect that I was speaking of is EXACTLY what you are decribing in your last paragraph regarding LOCAL govt.

[trevor]

And not to put too fine a point on it, but the federal government is in no way justified in or responsible for funding the states.

The Constitution's provision for a national defense merely outlines the right of the federal government to stand up a military; it does not allow for the incestuous funding of the states, which is nothing but a monetary bribe to ensure conformity with centralized demands.

[Wolf]

I don't disagree at all that the National Guard is responsible in the case I outlined. However, let's be realiztic... say terrorists take over an office building, or worse, a school. Who's going to be able to mobilize and respond more quickly... local police and swat, or national guardsmen who are, perhaps in another town, or who may be at their day jobs, or, yes who may be deployed with the military.

I guess the way I look at it is this... We all say "don't blame video games for violence. Hold the individual responsible." Or a better analogy is this... how many of us have said that guns don't kill people, don't blame the guns. Well how is this argument any different? Don't blame the tasers and armored boats, blame the guys who are misusing them and the local government that's responsible for controlling them.

My point? Maybe it's not the Federal gov't's responibility to provide funding for such things. But if your argument is that "if the gov't didn't provide the money to purchase these things then they couldn't be misused", well that's pretty close to the liberal argument that blames guns as the cause of violent crime.

[trevor]

I'm not sure if this last comment is directed at me or Frank, but I blame the STATE and its increasing militarization of our police forces for what we just witnessed over the weekend.

The taser and the tank alone obviously aren't the problem. The question is: in whose hands? The government reserves a monopoly on the use of force. They shout the orders; we're expected to comply. Period.

Obviously it is immoral for the states to confiscate money from taxpayers in the first place to fund police, to say nothing of militarized units aimed at intimidating and cornering the sheeple. That the federal leviathan gets in on this game as well and contributes even more money, retired army tanks, etc., to the states merely compounds the problem and further grows the State at our expense - paid in both money and lives.

You can't even begin to argue that we're blaming the taser or gun or tank alone until we're also allowed to use them in order to defend ourselves from the State in the first place. It is moral for free people to own them; it is immoral for the State to do so. We are held accountable for their misuse where the State is not.

[Wolf]

My argument is simply that the police should have the tools they need to do their job effectively, but that a better job needs to be done in managing how that occurs, when those tools are used, and against whom they are used.

If I understand your argument, you're saying that not only should the police not have these tools at all, but that we shouldn't even have a police force to begin with and that self-defense should fall SOLELY on the individual. Am I correct in that assessment? If so, this might be one of the few topics on which we part ways.

While I'm 100% all for the individual right to self-defense, I'm also all for a police force to maintain order and prevent chaos. But that police force has to have boundaries, and THAT'S what's slipping away.

[trevor]

No, we shouldn't have a GOVERNMENT police force. All of today's public services - from policing to the courts - should be privatized, where individuals can be held accountable for their actions instead of sitting above the law. Believe it or not, there is actually more private security in the country today than public.

There is no such thing as limited government, I'm sorry to report. The militarization of our police departments is palpable proof of that, ironically enough.

No government that must steal from others in order to exist in the first place can ever be trusted to restrain itself - meaning there is no such thing as "limited government."

If the government actually respected the property rights we ostensibly task it with defending, it could not take money by force or prevent others from competing with it, meaning that it would cease to be a government at all.

We can advocate "just a little" government intrusion into our lives for the "greater good" all day long - unfortunately, the vast majority of human beings everywhere buy into this notion - but just know that there is no such thing.

[Wolf]

I get where you're going now, and in an ideal world, I'd agree that public services should be privatized. But how do you prevent the same problems? We've all run into the trigger-happy, power-trippin' rent-a-cop. But, in theory, I agree with you.

[Wolf]

By the way, can I just say how nice it is to have intelligent people to have this kind of dialogue with? Whether we agree or disagree, it's always with respect for the other point of view. If I had this conversation at work, I'd end up either ostracized (sp?) or lynched!

[trevor]

I don't view the idea of privatizing the police et al. as belonging to an ideal world as much as a FREE world. Sadly, far too many people are truly ignorant of the concept of property rights.

In a private setting, of course you may have abuse by security officials - there would be no 'eliminating' it; living in freedom is not the same as living in some Utopia, insofar as there are no problems and everyone leads wistfully simple lives.

However, when privately employed citizens violate the property rights of others, they can be held accountable, whereas public officials almost universally are not (due to their monopoly on the use of force). Private companies are also intrinsically incentivized to provide only the best services to their customers if they wish to remain in business; and clearly, those who did not do so would wash out of the mix - as opposed to gaining endless subsidy on behalf of coerced taxpayers.

[world political forum]

The girl in the picture is very hot. I hope that is your girlfriend. ;)

Regards,
jay

[we're here because we're here]

We're here "just in case" we aren't able to collect enough overtime pay to buy a new SUV at the end of the year.