Sweden’s prime minister on Thursday said that he’s summoned the head of the military to discuss how the armed forces can help police deal with an unprecedented crime wave that has shocked the country with almost daily shootings and bombings.
Getting the military involved in crime-fighting would be a highly unusual step for Sweden, underscoring the severity of the gang violence that has claimed a dozen lives across the country this month, including teenagers and innocent bystanders.
Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that he would meet with the armed forces’ supreme commander and the national police commissioner on Friday to explore “how the armed forces can help police in their work against the criminal gangs.”
Law enforcement should not be militarized. Sweden just copying America’s mistakes.
Bear with me for a second. I am going to agree and disagree with you a bit.
While our law enforcement has more than its share of problems, I can’t really think of any instances where it was militarized. Believe me, I am absolutely not a fan of police overreach or some of the idiot, power hungry cops that are out there.
There were some cases where different police agencies did receive surplus military equipment, for whatever reason. Weird, sure. Militarized, not quite. One or two armored personnel carriers does not make a military out of a police department.
We do have the national guard, and they have come in handy a few times. When the US has riots, we tend to have them on a fairly grand scale. It takes some serious manpower to manage them and local police simply don’t have the resources. (1967: 12th Street riots; 82nd and 101st Airborne had to be called in after the National Guard)
Personally, I have been in ordered to shelter in place a couple of times when I lived in the D.C. area when SWAT had to lock down a block or two. Honestly, given the circumstances, I am quite glad that they had the equipment they had. The US has some really nasty places, for sure.
Should the a military be deployed because of rampant gang violence? Sure, if the manpower is needed and it’s for a short time. However, it absolutely should bring laser focus on the fact that these gangs weren’t disolved properly to begin with. If the government is being forced to apply controls to the entire population, there is something seriously wrong.
So, in short, the police shouldn’t be militarized themselves, but sometimes having additional manpower on standby can be a good thing.
It can go absolutely overboard and I think we can look at the instability in Africa right now to prove that.
Have an upvote for excellent Netiquette.
In Germany, the military cannot be deployed to use force inside Germany’s borders in peacetime. This is part of the constitution. The military must not be used as a domestic instrument of power. You can guess where this is coming from. As such I always view it quite critically when other countries do this, because there is definitely a danger to it.
Police in America: Poopy Diaper Police in other developed countries: Fresh Diaper
As ACAB as I am, at least the units they seem they will deploy have more than a daycamps worth of training. The problem with militarized forces in these situations is it can aggravate it further if not handled properly.
I’m looking at you 1985 Phillidalphia MOVE standoff. Even though they weren’t a ‘gang’ but just defying the law together in a non-threatening way; the police took to just bombing the whole city block.
When you say they should focus on the dissolving of the gangs is exactly correct. Bringing force en masse to combat situational instances won’t stop the problem from growing, you need to strategically remove the kingpins quickly to have the lower echelon fall apart. This also in turn with leaneancy on potential criminal whistleblowers, so those associated already have a ‘scapegoat’ to get out of that environment.
I could be totally wrong though, this is all based off my perceptions as a Midwest American. I just assume the offenders are members of the same community.
Agreed, this is how you stop the police from militarizing themselves.
All of this applies to the US. US law enforcement hasn’t been militarised since Reconstruction in the 1870s. When people say “militarised police”, they mean armored cars that can stop up to .308 rounds and carrying .223 rifles, both things that civilians can legally purchase. There is no police department in the US that has actual military equipment (outside of Coast Guard and DOD).
Agreed, this is how you stop the police from militarizing themselves.
Meh, this military stuff is such an exaggeration. It’s mainly about politicians wanting to look like they are strong and doing stuff.
The military are by law allowed to carry out some tasks the police force can. The main example that has been brought up, is to guard buildings of importance. They also have other skills when it comes to technology, and could help the police with knowledge there. That’s the gist of it.
Would not call that copy anyone’s mistakes at all to be honest.
Uh, America doesn’t mobilize the fucking army when a handful of gang members shoot each other.
No, the military has rules of engagement and accountability, when they shoot the wrong person they go to Leavenworth, not paid vacation.
There are pretty fair number of Iraqis that would disagree with your claim in regards to factual reality, but yes, and Posse Comitatus is one of those rules.
Why not? Why shouldn’t they bring in all of the necessary equipment to ensure success and to protect themselves?