This time from Denninger:
…We must insist that we have peace officers rather than law enforcement officers. A Peace Officer by definition is there to enforce that which is necessary to deter breaches of the peace — nothing more. A man selling something he lawfully purchased and owned to another person who can lawfully own and consume same is not breaching the peace. A man pointing a gun at someone, on the other hand, is and such an act is perfectly legitimate to meet with deadly force.
If we are interested in stopping the rapidly-deteriorating cycle of violence we must be honest about what has prompted the destruction of trust between peace officers and the public, starting with the redefinition of ‘peace officers’ into ‘law enforcement officers’. We then continued by militarizing those forces and intentionally creating an air of intimidation they project onto the public, from their big honking SUVs (what do you need one of those for, complete with its sub-15mpg fuel piggishness and outrageous cost to the taxpayer, when a Prius will do just as well as a routine beat cop?) to commando-style outfitting and equipment…
I defy anyone to construct a rational argument against demilitarizing 95% of local and state police personnel.
It’s well past time for a return to the Peelian Principles.
SWAT teams and armored vehicles are appropriate tools for barricaded violent felony suspects that have objectively demonstrated a refusal to surrender to lesser means.
The government legislators and executives who first hyperlegislate/regulate and then support militarized policing to enforce those excessive laws and regulations by implication also support the armed occupation of FUSA by paramilitary forces.
And they, along with their lackeys, will reap what they have sown.
(Image via Comrade Ushanka)