.... Like our Military .... I actually believe that Law Enforcement also needs to remain on the cutting razor edge of preparedness. They are on the front lines of the violent life and death battles that wage on our streets here at home. And like you, they want to return home to their loved ones every day after their shift ends. An officer well knows that it is their training and instincts that will allow them to do this. They are the troops on our streets and like any battle that is fought abroad by our military .... they shed their blood to keep us safe. And yes ... sometimes it does become necessary to spend money on training to help them do this.
.... Some could argue that concerns by law enforcement about an ineffective response etc became all too real here in the Los Angeles area for responding officers on February 28, 1997 in the North Hollywood area. (Reference: North Hollywood Shootout) Instantly after the After Action Reports were reviewed ...... The funding and training costs for upgraded equipment, training and firepower that had been denied for years by the bean counters suddenly, for some reason, became necessary. After every event there must be an After Action Report which many times will recommend how the outcome of an event could be improved and with any luck improvements are made.
.... I seem to recall a sobering event on September 11th 2001 that left Law enforcement with the sudden realization that necessitated the funding for equipment and training for adequate response as well as preventative measures to keep those that wish to do us harm from achieving their goals. And yes ... that would necessitate training such as referred to in this article.
.... Heck..... I am not making a philosophical, political or moral argument about the abuse of these units for sociopolitical gains. I am just saying that these training events and exercises are necessary and have their place in the scheme of things and help to keep them prepared for what might happen in the future. That is all about being prepared. The key is to maintain proper preparedness in the eventuality of their need. We can theorize all we want until we are blue in the face about what the these training exercises of the tactical units will be used for .... but the fact is that this training experience may well be necessary when the time comes.
.... It is much better to be prepared that to be sorry.
Law Enforcement = The State. A truly conservative viewpoint does not desire a powerful state on “the cutting edge”.
I suggest you strongly reconsider your viewpoint. It would have horrified our ideological forebears.
One might say the British were on “the cutting edge” of security when they made the abuses described in part by James Otis (who was making a case against writs of assistants):
“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.”
(He lost that particular case, but one of those in attendance that day was John Adams.)
Reflecting on that day, Adams wrote:
“Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.”
The Anti-Federalists took a dim view on The State being on the “cutting edge” of such matters. The Founders fought a War over England’s refusal to honor the Castle doctrine in the colonies (among other grievances)
Even Alexander Hamilton warned against it (The Federalist #8):
“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
And think about this:
“One of [America’s] greatest strengths is that the military is responsive to civilian authority and that we do not allow the Army, Navy, and the Marines and the Air Force to be a police force. History is replete with countries that allowed that to happen. Disaster is the result.” —Marine Lt. General Stephen G. Olmstead in his 1987 testimony before the U.S. Congress.
I suggest you study history before you make any more statements about how important it is for The State to remain “on the cutting edge of preparedness”.