It has recently been reported that the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office has acquired 16 new M4 military grade assault rifles, paid for through the sale of privately owned firearms seized by the LCSO. Reflecting on this, doesn’t one have to ask oneself, “Do we want or need our local police brandishing military weaponry against citizens?” Furthermore, what entailed the incidents wherein these personal firearms, later sold by the LCSO to fund the purchase of these new military weapons, were seized and forfeited? Is the creation of a police state the reason behind the rumored, “Lincoln County Gun Grab”?
We have seen the overly heavy-handed tactics of police not only around the nation, but here in our state. The Portland Press Herald lists numerous cases wherein deadly force was used by Maine officers from 2001 to 2012, most of which were unnecessary and could have easily been avoided. In 2007 a Waldoboro officer fatally shot an unarmed 18-year-old. Just weeks ago police in Chester fatally shot a man while confronting him for openly carrying a knife; a perfectly legal action. In many if not most past cases, officers have engaged in unnecessary if not borderline illegal actions such as trespassing, relying on a sort of “Nuremburg Defense” by stating their superiors gave them authorization. While racial prejudice overshadows events like the occurrence in Ferguson, Missouri, the majority of media outlets overlook the real problem that is rapidly emerging; the widespread abuse of police force and authority in our local municipalities. Perhaps it is poor officer education, or the lack of real “action” in rural areas, or the need to justify the millions of dollars granted to local law enforcement agencies by the Department of Homeland Security, which guides these officers into poor judgment. Regardless, the last thing the citizenry need do is fuel the fire by allocating more and more firepower. Lincoln County alone received an estimated $500,000 in the last few years from Homeland Security, over $280,000 between 2007 and 2009 alone according to maine.gov.
While some speculate that the LCSO’s problems lie in Sheriff Todd Brackett, others feel that four or five specific veteran officers abuse their authority unchecked while the others either accommodate their actions or stand idly by. Folks in other Maine counties have similar problems, more often in those counties with liberal democrat sheriffs. Unfortunately that is the vast majority. What the State of Maine needs are sheriffs with both knowledge of and deep respect for our Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees, and who care more about protecting those freedoms than they do about how to aid the degradation of our native land from the “Land of the Free” to the “Home of the Oppressed” by calling for more police authority, encroachment, and firepower.
John Burbank
Lexington Township
“Folks in other Maine counties have similar problems, more often in those counties with liberal democrat sheriffs.
While I oppose militarizing police, the quote above doesn’t make sense.
As long as an Officer FEELS that they are under a threat they will use that as a justification for deadly force. Most often it happens to be the case, but not always.
What about when LE actually acts in a manner to provoke such situations?
Example: a LEO is looking for a missing person and happens upon a fenced in yard with a dog. He shoots the dog claiming he was being threatened by the animal while conducting his search. No warrant or permission to search the property. This actually happened recently.
Fences are to keep people and animals out. Kennels are to keep animals in. Also the Albuquerque, NM. PD has a nasty habit of shooting first and asking questions later.
Are we moving toward a Police State? We are one and have been for some time now (ever since the Congress passed the Homeland protection Act).
Trade your Liberty for Security and you’ll wind up with neither. If you think you’re safe -think again!
As our citizens become more heavily armed, so will the police. It’s an arms war that will have no end, as long as we interpret the 2nd amendment as we now do.
Snowman, evidently your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment differs from mine. Lay down your arms and lay down your liberty. My name is Paul Sabin…and yours is????
Mr Sabin, Your interpretation of what matters differs from mine.(no one cares what your name is,other than your own friends).
It’s your ideas that matter.(“if” you are interested in having an open mind).
“That’s” what my parents taught me.
Basic principle,,,”everyone” gets a voice. Not just people you know.
They were right.
Mr. Sabin, That the interpretation of the second amendment has changed, in the past 30 years is an undeniable fact. It doesn’t matter where you check those facts, left wing, right wing or NRA fanatic, they all agree on that. You can argue all you want as to if that is a good thing, or a bad thing, if it’s right or if it’s wrong, but it’s a fact.
The number of people who are armed, the number of guns and the firepower of those guns, is vastly higher now than it has ever been in our history. Again, that’s a fact.
It is logical, that the more armed a society is, the more arms will be used. The more paranoid we are of the police, the more we will react to them, the more they perceive the potential for armed for to be pointed at them, the more they are to use preemptive force to counter the (perceived) threat.
The more people are armed, and the more often that they are armed, will increase the likelihood that misperceptions will happen as to the level of threat; the more “accidents” will happen, some of which will be misperceived by law enforcement as threats and therefor responded to in kind.
This is all, in my mind, just common sense. Live by the sword, die by the sword.