Posted on Oct 27, 2017
Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware for Police
2.5K
13
15
7
7
0
Police purchase Military equipment so they can have high quality equipment which will suit a variety of situations and because TTPs have already been developed and tested using this equipment from years of conflict. However there are some people who believe that this "Militarization" of the Police creates an attitude where the Police feel like they are fighting a "war" instead of serving and protecting. In some situations I can absolutely agree with this line of thinking but at the same time there are serious problems that Police need to be able to handle and it is always better to have and not need than to need and not have. What are your thought?
Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware for Police
Posted from nytimes.com
Police
Equipment
Crime
Firearms and Guns
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
First of all, the police are NOT the military. And while I'll readily agree that there are some direct crossovers in equipment, and even training, I strongly object to what has been coined the "militarization" of the police forces.
The police are the police...and they need to dress and act like police. They're not military combat soldiers and they're not walking their beats in Kadzack Aturdistan somewhere.
It really bothers me to see obvious abuses of equipment and tactics which should ONLY be used when the situation actually warrants it. "No Knock Warrants", for example. There are times when such tactics are called for, but it would seem that some police agencies tend to default to this type of tactic.
I'll readily agree that there is SOME need for SOME types of military vetted hardware in SOME circumstances. This is, after all, what the original idea was behind "SWAT" (Special Weapons and Tactics). SWAT has its origins in the 1960's, in response to a several sniping incidents against police and civilians across the country. SWAT tactics and police tactics are, therefore, NOT intended to be one and the same across the board.
There's a saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Obviously, this isn't the case with ALL police officers and ALL police departments across the board, but there is enough evidence to show a disturbing trend, nonetheless.
The police are the police...and they need to dress and act like police. They're not military combat soldiers and they're not walking their beats in Kadzack Aturdistan somewhere.
It really bothers me to see obvious abuses of equipment and tactics which should ONLY be used when the situation actually warrants it. "No Knock Warrants", for example. There are times when such tactics are called for, but it would seem that some police agencies tend to default to this type of tactic.
I'll readily agree that there is SOME need for SOME types of military vetted hardware in SOME circumstances. This is, after all, what the original idea was behind "SWAT" (Special Weapons and Tactics). SWAT has its origins in the 1960's, in response to a several sniping incidents against police and civilians across the country. SWAT tactics and police tactics are, therefore, NOT intended to be one and the same across the board.
There's a saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Obviously, this isn't the case with ALL police officers and ALL police departments across the board, but there is enough evidence to show a disturbing trend, nonetheless.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Not a fan of it and actually prefer to go the opposite direction in mostly disarming law enforcement accept for supervisors.
We are talking dealing with Americans not foreign combatants.
We are talking dealing with Americans not foreign combatants.
(2)
(0)
AA Joseph Moody
So...what would our unarmed police officers do when the drug dealer decides to shoot them?
(0)
(0)
PFC Lisa McDonald
Like I said armed supervisors and they have bullet proof vest.
I drove cab for three years and had none of that protection.
Maybe its time to start forcing them to start using their brains and non lethal options.
I drove cab for three years and had none of that protection.
Maybe its time to start forcing them to start using their brains and non lethal options.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sometimes it’s hard to understand unless you’ve actually served in the shoes of those who are front line law enforcement. It’s easy to quarterback from safety. I felt similar to you until I started to learn 1st hand what is encountered by LEOs and now I understand better what they are up against.
(0)
(0)
PFC Lisa McDonald
I drove taxicab and it wasn't in Mr.Rogers neighborhood.
Never carried a gun. I'd love to see cops drive cab unarmed in the neighborhoods I did!
Especially on the first of the month or Friday and Saturday night
Never carried a gun. I'd love to see cops drive cab unarmed in the neighborhoods I did!
Especially on the first of the month or Friday and Saturday night
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Better to have and not need than to need and not have. If there are legitimate concerns about the use of excessive force, that is a training and policy issue, imo.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google