Jump to content
Black Jesus

Obama restricts military-type gear police can have

Recommended Posts

To quote CNN

The banned list includes: tank-like armored vehicles that move on tracks, certain types of camouflage uniforms, bayonets, firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, grenade launchers, and weaponized aircraft.

Therefore, almost none of what PDs request from the 1033 program. They will still be able to get MRAPs, handguns, M4s/M16s, shotguns, optics and a majority of other miscellaneous equipment.

The only thing I could see being an issue for PDs are grenade launchers, since those can fire non-lethal grenades (tear gas, stingballs) that are often used by SWAT teams. But those can still be bought by police from the manufacturer.

 

Edited by c13

Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think handguns, shotguns, and optics are what people are concerned about cops getting. AFAIK, cops *don't* get semi-auto-only rifles like the AR-15s BlackJesus1 talked about through the 1033 program, which gives them military surplus (meaning the actual M4s and M16s issued by the US armed forces, which are assault rifles with at least one fully automatic/burst fire mode). I don't really see any police need for weaponized aircraft or tracked armored vehicles; for camouflage, my personal feeling is that cops should not be wearing camo as a rule. As c13 mentioned, this doesn't keep cops from buying this gear from the manufacturer (the President can't actually do that), it simply blocks transfer of certain kinds of actual US military surplus to police departments for an artificially deflated price. If cops want to get grenade launchers, ACUs, .50-cal rifles, etc., they just have to pay the actual price to the manufacturer. For stuff that's worth it (like probably grenade launchers), they'll buy it. For stuff that's not (bayonets with the possible exception of an honor guard, tracked armored vehicles, etc.), they won't get it.

I'll believe that this relevantly decreases law enforcement capabilities when criminals start using anti-armor weapons, high explosives, machine guns, and the like. Criminals don't currently use that. In the very rare situations that do involve higher-powered weapons, police can take immediate action if needed (which they already do, because you can't just sit tight for your town's SWAT team to arrive), or if not they can just sit tight and wait. Personally, I'd go with even more restriction to 1033, but that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't directed at patrol officers, this is in response to the DHS policy that retired military equipment and vehicles to local police departments. There are small southern towns that have Armored Personnel Carriers, think about that.

This is in response to the militarized police we saw dispersing protests in Ferguson and Baltimore. People don't want to see tanks and snipers at peaceful protests. Obviously there's a time to escalate the situation, but departments across the country have shown that they don't know when that time is. Instead, they've adopted the "boy with a new toy" policy. When a boy has a new toy, he can't wait to play with it.

Listen, I defended militarized police after the Boston Bombings, because there's a time and place for everything.

Other equipment, including tactical vehicles, explosives and riot equipment, will be transferred only if local police provide additional certification and assurances that the gear will be used responsibly, according to the report.

If a local department can't answer the question "why do you need tanks and explosives?", then they shouldn't have them. That's just common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think handguns, shotguns, and optics are what people are concerned about cops getting. AFAIK, cops *don't* get semi-auto-only rifles like the AR-15s BlackJesus1 talked about through the 1033 program, which gives them military surplus (meaning the actual M4s and M16s issued by the US armed forces, which are assault rifles with at least one fully automatic/burst fire mode). I don't really see any police need for weaponized aircraft or tracked armored vehicles; for camouflage, my personal feeling is that cops should not be wearing camo as a rule. As c13 mentioned, this doesn't keep cops from buying this gear from the manufacturer (the President can't actually do that), it simply blocks transfer of certain kinds of actual US military surplus to police departments for an artificially deflated price. If cops want to get grenade launchers, ACUs, .50-cal rifles, etc., they just have to pay the actual price to the manufacturer. For stuff that's worth it (like probably grenade launchers), they'll buy it. For stuff that's not (bayonets with the possible exception of an honor guard, tracked armored vehicles, etc.), they won't get it.

I'll believe that this relevantly decreases law enforcement capabilities when criminals start using anti-armor weapons, high explosives, machine guns, and the like. Criminals don't currently use that. In the very rare situations that do involve higher-powered weapons, police can take immediate action if needed (which they already do, because you can't just sit tight for your town's SWAT team to arrive), or if not they can just sit tight and wait. Personally, I'd go with even more restriction to 1033, but that's just me.

I'm having a hard time understanding the purpose to this, is my issue lol. I think that what the president is trying to do is very retarded, in my opinion. I don't see any issue with the way things are now, as far as police equipment goes. If it ain't broke don't fix it. It's not broke, so I don't see any sense in fixing it. The police should always be much more equipped than criminals. It should never be an equal match.


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for camouflage, my personal feeling is that cops should not be wearing camo as a rule.

​Just touching on this, camo is often helpful in more rural policing areas for obvious reasons. It also helps out in urban areas, particularly when a house lines up with a woodline. While definitely not keeping officers invisible, it adds critical few milliseconds of protection when a suspect is trying to find targets. 


Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just maybe this thing is a bit too much for a sheriff department, even if they border Mexico. 

 jcsu1ZLB8no.jpg

In my country cops are really heavily militarized, wearing camo, carrying AKs, driving huge APCs, and this all at the expense of the actual police work. Instead of spending money on investigative equipment and training they buy APCs and IMVs. Don't know how this is in the States though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for American citizen's views on law enforcement equipment and gun control, but it seems to me like allowing automatic assault rifles, machine guns and heavy ordnance to freely flow around the country into the hands of potential criminals is a recipe for disaster. Wouldn't a better Presidential decision be to restrict certain types of ammo - say armor piercing FMJ rounds (which would never be needed by civilians unless they're in a warzone) for civilian gun owners? that way, they wouldn't be able to penetrate Police body armor, giving the LEO's an edge in a firefight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Just touching on this, camo is often helpful in more rural policing areas for obvious reasons. It also helps out in urban areas, particularly when a house lines up with a woodline. While definitely not keeping officers invisible, it adds critical few milliseconds of protection when a suspect is trying to find targets. 

​I can see that. The issue is that the image presented is soldiers with small POLICE patches, and it's presented rather heavily (since SWAT teams are deployed reasonably often). MPs and state troopers should be easy to tell apart.

Just maybe this thing is a bit too much for a sheriff department, even if they border Mexico. 

 jcsu1ZLB8no.jpg

In my country cops are really heavily militarized, wearing camo, carrying AKs, driving huge APCs, and this all at the expense of the actual police work. Instead of spending money on investigative equipment and training they buy APCs and IMVs. Don't know how this is in the States though...

That's probably done more as a press stunt than anything else. Arpaio is not the average sheriff in the US; he is very happy with his "America's toughest sheriff" image; that office is also noted for blatant civil rights violations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just maybe this thing is a bit too much for a sheriff department, even if they border Mexico. 

 jcsu1ZLB8no.jpg

In my country cops are really heavily militarized, wearing camo, carrying AKs, driving huge APCs, and this all at the expense of the actual police work. Instead of spending money on investigative equipment and training they buy APCs and IMVs. Don't know how this is in the States though...

​Lol that Sheriff is a known nutjob, and he had to give back all the stuff he got, including the tanks. 

I don't think the US is heavily militarized imo. From what I've seen from departments around me, they chose training and investigations over SWAT equipment. And I've talked with my town's CIRT(SWAT) leader, and he told me they wanted and got the Bearcat last from federal grants. They chose a training simulator and a tactical robot first. Policing priorities are different everywhere though


YouTube:Black Jesus                                                   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for American citizen's views on law enforcement equipment and gun control, but it seems to me like allowing automatic assault rifles, machine guns and heavy ordnance to freely flow around the country into the hands of potential criminals is a recipe for disaster. Wouldn't a better Presidential decision be to restrict certain types of ammo - say armor piercing FMJ rounds (which would never be needed by civilians unless they're in a warzone) for civilian gun owners? that way, they wouldn't be able to penetrate Police body armor, giving the LEO's an edge in a firefight.

​This isn't a thread on gun control. If you would like to talk about that specific issue, please create a thread for it in this same section.


Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think handguns, shotguns, and optics are what people are concerned about cops getting. AFAIK, cops *don't* get semi-auto-only rifles like the AR-15s BlackJesus1 talked about through the 1033 program, which gives them military surplus (meaning the actual M4s and M16s issued by the US armed forces, which are assault rifles with at least one fully automatic/burst fire mode). I don't really see any police need for weaponized aircraft or tracked armored vehicles; for camouflage, my personal feeling is that cops should not be wearing camo as a rule. As c13 mentioned, this doesn't keep cops from buying this gear from the manufacturer (the President can't actually do that), it simply blocks transfer of certain kinds of actual US military surplus to police departments for an artificially deflated price. If cops want to get grenade launchers, ACUs, .50-cal rifles, etc., they just have to pay the actual price to the manufacturer. For stuff that's worth it (like probably grenade launchers), they'll buy it. For stuff that's not (bayonets with the possible exception of an honor guard, tracked armored vehicles, etc.), they won't get it.

I'll believe that this relevantly decreases law enforcement capabilities when criminals start using anti-armor weapons, high explosives, machine guns, and the like. Criminals don't currently use that. In the very rare situations that do involve higher-powered weapons, police can take immediate action if needed (which they already do, because you can't just sit tight for your town's SWAT team to arrive), or if not they can just sit tight and wait. Personally, I'd go with even more restriction to 1033, but that's just me.

I made some posts about this issue back when the media was covering all of the "militarized police" in Ferguson. Nobody has seemed to do any research on the topic. Nobody has looked at the reason why police started using most of this equipment in the first place. I made a post a while back listing several shootouts between police and heavily armed gunmen and how at the time the police were severely outgunned (one of the most famous being the North Hollywood Shootout). The criminals use body armor and high caliber weapons. I don't understand why the police are the bad guys in this situation? Why is there no outcry that just about anybody can buy a .50 caliber sniper rifle and body armor? Because if I wanted to, as a citizen, I could go out and buy just about any weapon I wanted and some body armor. So why is it ok for me (and bad guys) to purchase and own these things but it isn't ok for the police to have it.​

 

This is in response to the militarized police we saw dispersing protests in Ferguson and Baltimore. People don't want to see tanks and snipers at peaceful protests.

​You listed the two cities that were destroyed by riots, what exactly was "peaceful" about those protests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see an issue either. The most a situation should call for is heavy arms from something like SWAT, with certain rifles/AR's but the huge armored trucks and such aren't needed unless a goddamn riot is going on. I'm sure normal officers are certified to carry AR15's if absolutely necessary, aslong as Obama doesn't go crazy with the restrictions, but I see no reason to be angry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see a problem with this. Police officers shouldn't be rolling up to riots in tanks and full spec camo clothing anyway.

But of course the 98' LA riots, when approximately 50 people were killed, this would be appropriate. Or the Ferguson riots where the national guard was shot at and injured. Or the Baltimore riots where black gangs created a truce with the sole purpose of lethally harming law enforcement. If you've ever been to some of these American cities, the police NEED the tools and resources that they currently possess. If you have not been to any of these cities, then I really don't understand how you could determine whether or not the local police of that city need those tools. Sure you can read reports and such, but they're never as accurate and precise as physically being in the city yourself. Criminals are capable of purchasing some serious weaponry if they really wanted to, and the police need to be prepared for it. How often criminals use these weapons is irrelevant, because we've seen how a situation can unfold when law enforcement are outgunned (North Hollywood shoot out). I actually read somewhere that during this shoot out the police had to purchase weapons from the local gun dealer. That's fucking retarded. 


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

​So you honestly believe that it's appropriate to roll tanks to a scene to stop criminal activity? Seriously? I have little to no problem with the military weaponry supplied to law enforcement, but I don't believe they need armoured tracked vehicles or camouflage clothing in an urban environment.

Since you're so keen to bring up guns, why is it still legal for anyone with a police clearance to go and buy a high powered rifle and body armour? What the heck are you going to use it for? Protection? Yeah, because you're totally going to need an AR-15 and a full suit of body armour to stop someone from breaking into your house.

Before you're so quick to debate me, gun laws won't work in the United States. I know this. There's too many guns out there already, whether legal or illegal, and the majority of American people believe more guns is the solution. It's a culture that's almost impossible to break. I do understand this, however I don't in the slightest agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​So you honestly believe that it's appropriate to roll tanks to a scene to stop criminal activity? Seriously? I have little to no problem with the military weaponry supplied to law enforcement, but I don't believe they need armoured tracked vehicles or camouflage clothing in an urban environment.
Since you're so keen to bring up guns, why is it still legal for anyone with a police clearance to go and buy a high powered rifle and body armour? What the heck are you going to use it for? Protection? Yeah, because you're totally going to need an AR-15 and a full suit of body armour to stop someone from breaking into your house.

Before you're so quick to debate me, gun laws won't work in the United States. I know this. There's too many guns out there already, whether legal or illegal, and the majority of American people believe more guns is the solution. It's a culture that's almost impossible to break. I do understand this, however I don't in the slightest agree with it.

​Those "tanks" (tanks are tracked heavily armored vehicles armed with a large cannon) are large wheeled trucks with armored plating. A majority of the time, they sit in garages at the PD, and they are only pulled out for PR show and tell events and times when someone does have a weapon (ie:barricaded suspect, active shooter, etc). Even handgun calibers can rip through car doors, so adequate protection is needed in these types of situations.

On AR-15s, the advantage to their use might as well be over-documented. Every single reason why US police are switching to them over shotguns applies to civilians too. Body armor is purely defensive in nature.


Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​So you honestly believe that it's appropriate to roll tanks to a scene to stop criminal activity? Seriously? I have little to no problem with the military weaponry supplied to law enforcement, but I don't believe they need armoured tracked vehicles or camouflage clothing in an urban environment.
Since you're so keen to bring up guns, why is it still legal for anyone with a police clearance to go and buy a high powered rifle and body armour? What the heck are you going to use it for? Protection? Yeah, because you're totally going to need an AR-15 and a full suit of body armour to stop someone from breaking into your house.

Before you're so quick to debate me, gun laws won't work in the United States. I know this. There's too many guns out there already, whether legal or illegal, and the majority of American people believe more guns is the solution. It's a culture that's almost impossible to break. I do understand this, however I don't in the slightest agree with it.

c13 has addressed a lot of what I was going to address, so I'll leave that on the table as it is. I'm not sure where you got the whole tank thing from. I don't think anyone agrees that a full blown tank with a cannon should be deployed to a riot. 

You also need to understand that gun laws are more in favor of the American people. If a criminal can go and purchase an assault rifle from the black market, then I should be able to purchase a handgun from my local gun dealer. Once the criminals have their guns taken, then I'll gladly give up mine. The American people refuse to be left defenselessly slaughtered by gangs and thugs with weapons. You're also not considering the specific circumstances of gun owners. There are people that live in very rural and agricultural areas, maybe two or three small houses every few miles. What happens if their homes are broken into? Should they just sit there and wait 45 minutes for the local sheriff to show up, helplessly at the mercy of the burglar? No, that's retarded and anyone that believes that should see a psychologist. If you break into my home, I'm gonna light you up like the 4th of July. You shouldn't be in my home to begin with, and if you hadn't broken in it wouldn't be a problem. Most American police officers also support gun ownership. That should say something about the legal aspect and impact of it.

Making guns illegal in the United States isn't realistic. So rather than make it illegal and leave law abiding citizens defenseless, why not make it legal and allow law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals? It's a very simple situation really. I think that because some people don't reside in the United States, they assume the situation is much worse than it actually is. The last fear I have in the United States is being shot by a gun. I don't fear being shot at all, and never have. I can even say that the majority of Americans don't fear being shot. I honestly fear getting beat up more than getting shot.

Edited by IntentionalDefiance

It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​So you honestly believe that it's appropriate to roll tanks to a scene to stop criminal activity? Seriously? I have little to no problem with the military weaponry supplied to law enforcement, but I don't believe they need armoured tracked vehicles or camouflage clothing in an urban environment.

​The best image of a police officer I have is a friendly person in a nice but appropriate uniform with maybe a pair of cuffs, a baton, a taser, a flashlight, talking to people sitting on their doorsteps in the morning. Kinda like British cops I guess. But there's totally nothing wrong in bringing all the power you have if a riot or a serious crime occurs, because if there's a "tank" (or actually an APC) that can offer more protection it's wise to use it. 

I guess you remember the CHP troopers slain in Newhall? Officers had no vests and simple revolvers, so they were gunned down one by one. Different cultures, different environments. In Paris this winter two officers were killed before they even realized what was going on, in the USA cops killed the perps. In Russia we have extremely militarized police, which is bad, but their special units receive military-grade training, which is good and helps in kicking some asses. 

Tl;dr militarizing cops is bad. Providing them with some special tools for special occasions might save somebody's life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​The best image of a police officer I have is a friendly person in a nice but appropriate uniform with maybe a pair of cuffs, a baton, a taser, a flashlight, talking to people sitting on their doorsteps in the morning. Kinda like British cops I guess. But there's totally nothing wrong in bringing all the power you have if a riot or a serious crime occurs, because if there's a "tank" (or actually an APC) that can offer more protection it's wise to use it. 

I guess you remember the CHP troopers slain in Newhall? Officers had no vests and simple revolvers, so they were gunned down one by one. Different cultures, different environments. In Paris this winter two officers were killed before they even realized what was going on, in the USA cops killed the perps. In Russia we have extremely militarized police, which is bad, but their special units receive military-grade training, which is good and helps in kicking some asses. 

Tl;dr militarizing cops is bad. Providing them with some special tools for special occasions might save somebody's life. 

This is all I'm saying. I'm not saying that we should swap out the police for the military. I'm just saying that if a sniper rifle could potentially save lives, then I'm all for it. If an APC can save some lives, then let them have it. If grenades can prevent a terrorist attack, then more power to them. 


It takes a particularly intelligent person to hold a civilized political discussion with someone on the opposite side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​Those "tanks" (tanks are tracked heavily armored vehicles armed with a large cannon) are large wheeled trucks with armored plating. A majority of the time, they sit in garages at the PD, and they are only pulled out for PR show and tell events and times when someone does have a weapon (ie:barricaded suspect, active shooter, etc). Even handgun calibers can rip through car doors, so adequate protection is needed in these types of situations.

This is not what I meant. When I say "tanks", I'm referring to the large, ex-military vehicles with caterpillar tracks being handed down to law enforcement agencies, not armoured trucks such as the Lenco Bearcat.

Speaking of which though, I don't believe APCs are exactly necessary either, but whatever.
(note: I do NOT consider the Lenco Bearcat and similar models as APCs, though technically they still are. When I think of an APC, I think of something like this)

Edited by Illusionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not what I meant. When I say "tanks", I'm referring to the large, ex-military vehicles with caterpillar tracks being handed down to law enforcement agencies, not armoured trucks such as the Lenco Bearcat.
Speaking of which though, I don't believe APCs are exactly necessary either, but whatever.
(note: I do NOT consider the Lenco Bearcat and similar models as APCs, though technically they still are. When I think of an APC, I think of something like this)

I don't know of a single agency that has a tank or has even requested one. Besides the political ramifications, maintenance costs would be through the roof for something never used.


Sticks and stones may break bones, but 5.56 fragments on impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of a single agency that has a tank or has even requested one. Besides the political ramifications, maintenance costs would be through the roof for something never used.

If I understand the Illusionary correctly he meant something like this. Not a Bearcat or another law enforcement-designed vehicle, but caterpiller-tracked ex-military armored unit. 

 BvjCp1-CMAEDLed.png

(note: I do NOT consider the Lenco Bearcat and similar models as APCs, though technically they still are. When I think of an APC, I think of something like this)

​hey wait, you didn't enjoy driving it in GTA SA during Los Santos riots? v_v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...