Militarization of Police Departments

This matter has been discussed many times and each of those threads has ended up locked for various reasons. The majority of people do not support militarized police. My opinion is we have no choice. Society is getting more dangerous all the time and we need a group of well armed people to protect us. I might point out whats happening overseas, the various public shootings or the usual crime which occurs here.

I know its a bit scary seeing an armored vehicle and an officer with an AR15, but there is a purpose for it and thats to stop the people whose intention is to inflict great harm upon us. As for Ferguson there were a few armed people in the crowd. It just takes one armed person to cause great casualties so a strong response was needed.
 
Seems if they're outfitted with automatic weapons, armored vehicles, grenades
Click to expand...

What LE department have received grenades? I have yet to hear about that. I am certain grenades are not in the program. However grenade launchers perhaps, but as someone else has said earlier they are used to deliver less lethal munitions i.e. bean bag rounds.

Over all the program save tax payers from paying twice on many things. There is an agency here that some years ago received some 400 M-16s not as single one left their armory until they changed the fire control group to semi and removed the auto-sear. Those M-16's where already bought and paid for by the US tax payer so they could have been destroyed or handed down to an agency like they were and then converted. Think of the cost savings instead of buying 400 rifles for $600-$900 each the agency now got them for about $75 each, nice deal for the tax payer.

Also this program is not just for guns and armored cars, there is other equipment and tools they receive. Again same agency that got the M-16's just got some aimpoints that they are now issuing to the officers that have the rifles. They were able to get enough in good working condition to put on every one of the 400 rifles. Again what did that save the tax payer that would have ended up paying for the same item twice.
 
We have killed an American citizen overseas with an armed drone without a warrant. From what I've read he deserved it.
Click to expand...

A) that probably wasn't police
B) Even if it was, they don't have to get a warrant when they shoot a gunman on your street do they?
C) Exactly which judge was the drone pilot supposed to ask for a warrant to do what?

What LE department have received grenades?
Click to expand...
It's more of that "military style rifle" obfuscation. Many if not all of them have flash bangs, chemical, and smoke. I imagine few to none have fragmentation.
 
I believe DoD pointed out recently that 95% of the equipment provided to law enforcement agencies is not specifically tactical in nature, but rather office supplies, furniture, and electronics.
 
About a month ago there was a multiple home invasion incident in Las Vegas. It's so happened to be on my street. I was very happy to see officers walking by my window with A.R. 15's in that moment. Two people and a perp got killed.

The officers took him down with assistance of a helicopter and a couple of young officers with AR15s. There was no time for a SWAT team to arrive and deal with it, and these Las Vegas Metro PD officers performed spectacularly.

It seems most of the objections to the so called militarization of police are to equipment that is primarily defensive, i.e. riot shields, full protective body gear, armored vehicles, etc. Tear gas is somewhat offensive, I suppose, though less than lethal.

So what are we saying, that police officers don't have a right to whatever gear and equipment is necessary to keep them alive in the middle of out-of-control violence? I'm pretty sure no resident of Ferguson would object to using an armored police vehicle for cover to escape their own death. Why should they begrudge the same protection to the police?

For that matter, if a lawful citizen (without ill-intent, and not for nefarious purposes) were so inclined to drive their own armored vehicle, and wear a gas mask and body armor, it might be odd, but I think they would have every right to do that as well. Neither the police nor citizens have any obligation whatsoever to make themselves vulnerable to lethal or nonlethal attacks.

Isn't so called militarization more about the software than the hardware?
 
Last edited:
weapons allowed

I have a question,ok everybody I'd saying that if the mob100's of people are rushing the police, they are not allowed to shoot,stand their ground.So here we have the national guard same situation ,are they allowed to fire ? If not what what is the purpose of being there ,when the mob can rush them an go on vandalizing or what ever.explain this
 
If not what what is the purpose of being there ,when the mob can rush them an go on vandalizing or what ever.explain this
Click to expand...

If you’re asking why the police can’t shoot people down in the streets for stealing beer and cigarettes I think the answer is - it would be illegal and immoral. What they can do is use the various non-lethals like tear gas, rubber bullets, etc to disperse the crowd.
 
Two people and a perp got killed.
Click to expand...

I take it, from the tone of the rest of your post, that the two people weren't killed by officers firing at the perp.

Yes, the patrol rifle does have a place in modern policing. To paraphrase one of our truisms, "When seconds count, the SWAT Team is only minutes away!" ;)
 
So what are we saying, that police officers don't have a right to whatever gear and equipment is necessary to keep them alive in the middle of out-of-control violence?
Click to expand...

We've been down this road before, and those who make this argument always fail to acknowledge that the police actually don't have a right to whatever they want, because this is a job they are doing at the behest of, and funded by money from, the public. The public gets to call the shots on what the police are, and are not, allowed to do (the courts, secondarily, as a check on the populace). What the police do have authority over, is who and what charges to go after and enforce most vigorously.

Even if a cop buys an Uzi with his own money, it is not his right to carry/use it in the course of his duties; it is his right to possess it as the civilian that he is, off the clock. The same goes for body armor, rifles, helicopters, MRAPS, and any other goodies gotten from the DoD or from bond elections. The people get to decide, and the police must convince the people that what they want (and let's be real, most of this is pure 'want') is what they should actually be given. Hence the constant cries of 'out of control violence' in this, the 30-year nadir of violence in our nation, and constant and continual cudgel of "The Police Guilt Trip." The latter of which I am rapidly losing respect for in light of the 'home safe' mentality on wide display everywhere (hint: conducting your actions so as to best guarantee your own survival regardless the consequences to others, is very nearly the definition of cowardice). The best 'home safe' guarantee is to quit being a police officer and let someone so inclined to risk themselves in the course of service to their community take the reigns.

Yes, the patrol rifle does have a place in modern policing
Click to expand...
To be honest, it has always had a place in policing, but for some reason, it never showed up in the places where history pays attention. Lots of stories out there of the old sheriff having a rifle, but the romantic image of the boy in blue is a revolver. I suspect this is because that stereotype came from large Eastern cities in the golden age of cinema, places where a rifle would have precious little utility, but the now-forbidden 'sap' or blackjack was extremely effective. Oddly, I rarely hear officers demanding they be allowed their old leeway regarding the use of saps on uncooperative suspects; from what I gather, they were even more effective than stun guns or tasers, and if used properly, rarely threatened the life of the suspect (not unlike stun guns or tasers).

TCB
 
I served 22.5 yrs in police work. I was the SWAT commander.
We were available on drug raids, hostage situations, dangerous felon arrests but the public never saw us.
We had 3 MP-5s, one supressed, no one knew that outside the department.
I'm a firm believer in community policing. Get out of the squad car for a bit and talk to people. Be an ambassador of good will.
Treat everyone as well as they will let you.
I never saw a "frag" grenade. ALL grenades were CS or CN dust, commonly called tear gas. Our 1.5" bore grenade laucher was only for delivering tear gas.
We had the wooden "knee knocker" rounds but never used them.
One hot summder day there was a crowd disturbance, (flippin riot!).
We had 7 patrol cars there that were targets for rocks & bottles.
I showed up as command officer.
My sgt. wanted to call in reserves, sheriff, township cops, etc.
Know what I did? I sent ALL of my men away. No more targets for rocks & bottles. I went into the crowd of young aggitated blacks and talked to them by name. I knew many by name, knew thier aunts, uncles, preachers, parents.
No one laid a hand on me. Not one.
It wasn't a move out of bravdo, I was a bit apprehensive but it was the right move at that time. The crowd wasn''t having fun anymore so they melted away.
Had we panicked & brought lots more police we'd have a a real bad riot to deal with.
 
I guess one of the problems I see is who is receiving these items? Franklin, VA, a small town not far from me just received an MRAP. Explain to me why a town of 8900 people needs one of these? I thought it was outrageous when the small, local towns received Dodge Chargers. And it is. We don't have any high-speed chases.

Should the police be able to defend themselves? Absolutely. But if something happens that the police departments can't handle, there are other channels in place to do so. The LA riots, when the unrest was too much for the police department to handle they sent in the National Guard. Hurricane Katrina, the same thing.

The last line of defense is us, the citizens.
 
the police department to handle they sent in the National Guard. Hurricane Katrina, the same thing
Click to expand...

I heard they sent the Guard to Kent State too. If an MRAP keeps the Guard at their day job, I'm not going to complain. One Weekend a month and two weeks a year is not the guy (or gal) I want standing guard in front of a protest. Flying a helo into a disaster zone, or ending an actually violent riot give them a call. Until then I'd rather have the guys who do it for a living out there, with an MRAP to drive away in while the Governor sends in the guard.
 
Tam wrote a great piece concerning the militrization of police.

My concern isn't that Deputy Dog has an AR-15 with an ACOG on it. Hell, Frank Hamer used a BAR more than I shoot my carry gun. My concern is that Deputy Dog is dressed like Delta Force Dog about to take down an IED Factory in Mosul. And has an "us versuses them" attitude to match it. Local police should act as if they are to "serve and protect" their local community.
Sir Robert Peel wrote a pretty good book about it.

I understand a tie and a service jacket aren't practical these days. And I understand combat boots make a pretty good choice of foot where over the patent leather low quarter. And, as a veteran, I certainly get body armor.

But you're really gonna have to explain to me the need for MARPATs or ACUs, an MRAP, and a group of guys who look like the Blackhawk catalog serving a search warrant for a couple of ounces of pot.
 
On one side you have the conservatives who hate government to include the police. On another side you have the liberals who believe the police are racists. In yet another corner you have all the people still mad about their speeding tickets. The media hates the police. Reporters who never spent one day as an officer casting a shadow upon their work.

If the police are unprepared you complain. If they show up overprepared than its the militarization of police.

So the police cant win these message board discussions.
 
I don't see what the "militarized police OMG" crowd is getting excited about...

What are we really talking about here... scary looking black rifles? scary looking trucks? scary looking clothes?

Police brutality, when it happens, is independent of the tools and weapons the police have. Brutality with a nightstick and a 38 revolver is not any less brutal than brutality with a flash bang, tear gas, and an AR-15.

Are we really making the argument that the presence of tactical gear at the police station causes the police to become more "militaristic"... The mere possession of a scary looking weapon can change a persons behavior for the worse? Really? I thought that was Bloomberg's argument for gun control? Are we now agreeing with the anti-gun nuts?

Jim
 
barnbwt said:
Maestro_Pistolero said:
So what are we saying, that police officers don't have a right to whatever gear and equipment is necessary to keep them alive in the middle of out-of-control violence?
Click to expand...
We've been down this road before, and those who make this argument always fail to acknowledge that the police actually don't have a right to whatever they want, because this is a job they are doing at the behest of, and funded by money from, the public. The public gets to call the shots on what the police are, and are not, allowed to do (the courts, secondarily, as a check on the populace). What the police do have authority over, is who and what charges to go after and enforce most vigorously.
Click to expand...

I think you are both missing the point that this particular argument is not actually about "rights," since police agencies do not have them. That being said, the public does not get to call the shots on what the police are and are not allowed to do and have. The public elects legislators, city council members, and county board members who can approve or deny budgets for the agencies for which they are responsible. The general police power itself is delegated to the states, who formalize it and delegate it themselves in their constitutions and city charters. The judiciary then judges whether actions by police agencies brought before the courts are in accord with the law as enacted by the legislators.

The fact that some percentage of the public thinks one way or another is quite honestly irrelevant. When enough people consider it to be an important political issue, eventually they will elect legislators who agree, and changes will be made. This process is (intentionally) glacially slow on the national level but can happen quite quickly on the local level. Plenty of communities have, in fact, decided that they don't want their local PD to have an MRAP. Others have decided otherwise. That's the way it should be.

barnbwt said:
Even if a cop buys an Uzi with his own money, it is not his right to carry/use it in the course of his duties; it is his right to possess it as the civilian that he is, off the clock. The same goes for body armor, rifles, helicopters, MRAPS, and any other goodies gotten from the DoD or from bond elections.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you are going with this. If a cop buys an Uzi with his own money, and carrying it as a patrol weapon is authorized by department policy, he does, in fact, have the 'right' to carry and use it in the course of his duties. If the community doesn't like that, they will write letters and vote differently until their city council or county board forces the Sheriff or Chief to change that policy, and the officer will then no longer have the 'right' to carry his or her Uzi.

barnbwt said:
The people get to decide, and the police must convince the people that what they want (and let's be real, most of this is pure 'want') is what they should actually be given. Hence the constant cries of 'out of control violence' in this, the 30-year nadir of violence in our nation, and constant and continual cudgel of "The Police Guilt Trip."
Click to expand...

I am guessing you are just mad that the "people" have decided to let the police have wider leeway than you would prefer in equipment and practices?

barnbwt said:
The latter of which I am rapidly losing respect for in light of the 'home safe' mentality on wide display everywhere (hint: conducting your actions so as to best guarantee your own survival regardless the consequences to others, is very nearly the definition of cowardice). The best 'home safe' guarantee is to quit being a police officer and let someone so inclined to risk themselves in the course of service to their community take the reigns.
Click to expand...

From past discussion, I gather that you feel that police officers should always be personally civilly and criminally liable for all actions taken on duty, regardless of whether it was in accord with policy and law and regardless of whether the action was undertaken in good faith.

Given that law enforcement requires making daily split-second decisions regarding life, death, civil rights, and community relations without necessarily having complete or even accurate information necessary to make the perfect decision every time, and given that you also feel officers should not have body armor, rifles, helicopters, or armored vehicles...

...where do you think you are going to find "someone so inclined to risk themselves in the course of service to their community" while you are waiting in the wings to sue or imprison them?
 
I own a compliant non-NFA Uzi and its MUCH safer than any Glock pistol any officer carries. I would argue that rifles and Uzi pistols are much safer than any pistol. More accurate and wont just go off with a misplaced finger. Just because the Uzi looks scary doesnt mean that its less safe than the Glock.
 
Last edited:
The problem doesn't lie with whether or not the Uzi is anymore or any less safe than a Glock or Patrol Carbine. I have no problem with, nor do I think anyone does, with police officers carrying enough gun for the task at hand, or any task they may encounter.

The problem lies when concerns for officer safety morph into an attitude of "us vs. them" instead of community policing. That's when the MRAPs, ACUs, and face masks become the marks of an occupying force instead of a group of people trying to help their local community.

In Afghanistan, we were specifically forbidden from wearing bacalavas, covering our mouths with our ever present Keffiyehs unless the wind or sand was really bad. In dealings with local leaders, we doffed our kevlar. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top