De-militarize the Police Mindsetby William Norman Grigg
Sep. 01, 2014
1.Hysterical Bloomberg Columnist: Trump's 'America First' Speech Reminiscent of 'Nazi Era'
2.Student Rep. On Free Speech: "Some People Have More Equal Rights Than Others"
3.The Guardian Says Correcting People On Their Grammar Is Racist
4.Trump Foreign Policy Speech Signals Death of Neocons and Peace With Russia
5."All He Could Say Was 'Sex, Sex, Sex'": Wave of Muslim Migrant Sex Assaults Hits Austria
6.Prosecutor: "Many People" Will Riot in Baltimore If White Cop in Freddie Gray Case Is Acquitted
7.South African Sports Associations 'Too White'
8.Former House Speaker and "Serial Child Molester" Dennis Hastert Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison
Shortly after the creation of the city’s Police Department in the mid-1800s, the New York Times expressed misgivings about the agency’s use of lethal force in dealing with criminal suspects.
“The pistols are not used in self-defense, but to stop the men who are running away,” observed an 1858 New York Times editorial. “[The guns] are considered substitutes for swift feet and long arms… [W]e doubt the propriety of employing them for such a purpose. A Policeman has no right to shoot a man for running away from him.”
In fact, the paper’s editorial board expressed doubts about “the policy of arming our Policemen with revolvers.” This wasn’t because defensive force would never be necessary or justified, but because of the promiscuous use of lethal force by police in circumstances where it was neither.
Two years ago, Chief Ken James of the Emeryville, California Police Department candidly stated that police don’t use guns for defensive purposes, but rather “to intimidate and … show power [and to] face any opposition that we may come upon.”
This is the mindset of an occupying army. It is that mindset, not just the hardware, that makes weaponry dangerous, regardless of the identity of its owner.