​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. 

​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. 

​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 May 19, 201510 yr by Illusionary

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.

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. 

 

(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

 

​In all honesty, the environment in the picture you provided appears to be very nasty, hostile, and crime ridden. I don't see any issue with an armored truck or two providing non-lethal support to riot officers. It also seems like people are judging whether or not the vehicles are necessary, solely based on the appearance of the vehicle. I don't understand how the physical appearance is relevant. If objects are being thrown at law enforcement, then an armored vehicle is necessary. This is the United States, police aren't just going to be pelted with objects and have their windows smashed out.

 

Edited May 19, 201510 yr by IntentionalDefiance

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. 

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

​Yes, those things.

And I did, lol.

I think some police forces are militarizing too much. Seems to the point to where you don't know if they're your neighborhood police officer or National Guard. I do believe things such as AR-15s and all are much more of a need than a want nowadays, but I don't see the need for these huge APCs and such.

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.​

​Criminals *don't* buy .50 cal rifles. They don't buy any sort of rifle. Criminals buy pistols. Or steal pistols, sometimes from police officers. A civilian does not need to justify their purchase of a .50-cal rifle, because it's perfectly OK to buy a rifle to shoot at pieces of paper. Cops are spending taxpayer money. They are not allowed to buy weapons for the sole purpose of shooting at paper targets on a range, because that is not a good use of taxpayer money. Cops need to justify why, exactly, they need a .50-cal rifle in the course of their duties (note that police snipers tend to work from much closer range than military snipers), and are subject to the citizenry deciding that either yes, this is something police should have or no, that's not something that police should have. A civilian doesn't have the same factors, because the grounds for the general public to decide whether or not you can have a particular gun are much shakier.

On the matter of shootouts, the North Hollywood shootout led to both criminals dead and zero others dead. I see it a lot as an example of "cops need lots of firepower," but really? Patrol officers had pistols and shotguns, and managed to handle the situation well enough that no one died, while waiting for reinforcements and temporarily acquiring their own high-powered weaponry. Since then, the number of recurrences of that sort of heist has been zero. Newhall? Done with a pistol, and more to do with tactics than weaponry.

Incidentally, in a breakdown of the police-civilian relationship, it's not even possible for anyone except the police to be responsible. The police have to take the civilian populace as they come. If people don't want cops looking like soldiers (and there seems to be a definite trend in that direction), cops get no special say in the matter. If people don't like police tactics, cops need to change tactics. This could possibly increase risk to cops or the general public. To the degree it increases risk for cops, it's not actually too big a problem, because taking those risks is part of their job (if cops don't want to take risks, they should quit and become accountants). To the degree it increases risk to the public, that's for the public to decide.

On the matter of shootouts, the North Hollywood shootout led to both criminals dead and zero others dead. I see it a lot as an example of "cops need lots of firepower," but really? Patrol officers had pistols and shotguns, and managed to handle the situation well enough that no one died, while waiting for reinforcements and temporarily acquiring their own high-powered weaponry.

I agree with most of the post except this. Criminals firing at cops in a prolonged shootout isn't managing a situation. That is a failure on behalf of the police (primarily because they did not have the tools to succeed that day).

The main reason only the suspects died was because of the rounds being fired. The suspects were using armor piercing ammunition, which, while slicing through cars and vests like butter, left neat little holes instead of expanding upon impact. Multiple cops would've been killed had they used hollow points.

Also, while police did procure rifles from area gun stores, they were taken too late to be employed.

Edited May 19, 201510 yr by c13

​Criminals *don't* buy .50 cal rifles. They don't buy any sort of rifle. Criminals buy pistols. Or steal pistols, sometimes from police officers. A civilian does not need to justify their purchase of a .50-cal rifle, because it's perfectly OK to buy a rifle to shoot at pieces of paper. Cops are spending taxpayer money. They are not allowed to buy weapons for the sole purpose of shooting at paper targets on a range, because that is not a good use of taxpayer money.

Out of curiosity, how do you know what weapons criminals use? I assume you haven't shaken hands with every criminal in America. 

​Criminals *don't* buy .50 cal rifles. They don't buy any sort of rifle. Criminals buy pistols. Or steal pistols, sometimes from police officers. A civilian does not need to justify their purchase of a .50-cal rifle, because it's perfectly OK to buy a rifle to shoot at pieces of paper. Cops are spending taxpayer money. They are not allowed to buy weapons for the sole purpose of shooting at paper targets on a range, because that is not a good use of taxpayer money. Cops need to justify why, exactly, they need a .50-cal rifle in the course of their duties (note that police snipers tend to work from much closer range than military snipers), and are subject to the citizenry deciding that either yes, this is something police should have or no, that's not something that police should have. A civilian doesn't have the same factors, because the grounds for the general public to decide whether or not you can have a particular gun are much shakier.

On the matter of shootouts, the North Hollywood shootout led to both criminals dead and zero others dead. I see it a lot as an example of "cops need lots of firepower," but really? Patrol officers had pistols and shotguns, and managed to handle the situation well enough that no one died, while waiting for reinforcements and temporarily acquiring their own high-powered weaponry. Since then, the number of recurrences of that sort of heist has been zero. Newhall? Done with a pistol, and more to do with tactics than weaponry.

Incidentally, in a breakdown of the police-civilian relationship, it's not even possible for anyone except the police to be responsible. The police have to take the civilian populace as they come. If people don't want cops looking like soldiers (and there seems to be a definite trend in that direction), cops get no special say in the matter. If people don't like police tactics, cops need to change tactics. This could possibly increase risk to cops or the general public. To the degree it increases risk for cops, it's not actually too big a problem, because taking those risks is part of their job (if cops don't want to take risks, they should quit and become accountants). To the degree it increases risk to the public, that's for the public to decide.

​I'm sorry, but are you really suggesting police must obey the every whim of the civilians? That police should knowingly change tactics, risking the death of police officers? Simply because civilians don't like their tactics? Forgive me, but I do not believe civilians are trained or have generally experienced tactical, split second decisions police officers must make to save the lives of themselves, fellow officers and civilians. The civilians are not law enforcement experts and can not be allowed tell police what tactics they can and cant use. Yes, the tactics should consider the safety of civilians, but they shouldn't disregard the safety of officers at the expense of how happy civilians are with their work. Yes, police officers signed up and know they take risks, but no matter what tactics they use they still risk everything. By allowing untrained, inexperienced and uneducated civilians in terms of tactics and law enforcement to decide what tactics the cops should use, you are effectively sending officers to their death, the officers who have to follow the tactics that the general civilian population HAPPY with, will end up dying, and very little civilians who made sure the tactics are changed will give a shit. You can't trust the running of law enforcement in the hands of untrained and uneducated civilians in terms of law enforcement. Police Officers are people. Why would you let people change their tactics just because they aren't happy with them, and knowingly send officers to their deaths. Mothers, Fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They are people and should not be treated with such disrespect that untrained and uneducated civilians decide what tactics to use. The police are the ones throwing themselves in the line of fire for the civilians. The civilians do not make the risky split-second decisions that cops made. I find it utterly disgraceful that people think a police officer should be subject to such ignorance and have their lives put in danger by the tactics civilians chose.

Out of curiosity, how do you know what weapons criminals use? I assume you haven't shaken hands with every criminal in America. 

FBI Crime statistics track weapons used in crimes. 93% of murder weapons are handguns

FBI Crime statistics track weapons used in crimes. 93% of murder weapons are handguns

Ok thanks for that. Wasn't aware of this. 

​I'm sorry, but are you really suggesting police must obey the every whim of the civilians? That police should knowingly change tactics, risking the death of police officers? Simply because civilians don't like their tactics? Forgive me, but I do not believe civilians are trained or have generally experienced tactical, split second decisions police officers must make to save the lives of themselves, fellow officers and civilians. The civilians are not law enforcement experts and can not be allowed tell police what tactics they can and cant use. Yes, the tactics should consider the safety of civilians, but they shouldn't disregard the safety of officers at the expense of how happy civilians are with their work. Yes, police officers signed up and know they take risks, but no matter what tactics they use they still risk everything. By allowing untrained, inexperienced and uneducated civilians in terms of tactics and law enforcement to decide what tactics the cops should use, you are effectively sending officers to their death, the officers who have to follow the tactics that the general civilian population HAPPY with, will end up dying, and very little civilians who made sure the tactics are changed will give a shit. You can't trust the running of law enforcement in the hands of untrained and uneducated civilians in terms of law enforcement. Police Officers are people. Why would you let people change their tactics just because they aren't happy with them, and knowingly send officers to their deaths. Mothers, Fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They are people and should not be treated with such disrespect that untrained and uneducated civilians decide what tactics to use. The police are the ones throwing themselves in the line of fire for the civilians. The civilians do not make the risky split-second decisions that cops made. I find it utterly disgraceful that people think a police officer should be subject to such ignorance and have their lives put in danger by the tactics civilians chose.

​RDWAIFU is exactly right.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  The motto "to protect and serve" is not just a saying, it is police officer's way of life.

​RDWAIFU is exactly right.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  The motto "to protect and serve" is not just a saying, it is police officer's way of life.

Exactly, I see no issue with the way things are. Removing their equipment will only decrease their capabilities of being able to do what they do best. Keep the peace. 

​I'm sorry, but are you really suggesting police must obey the every whim of the civilians? That police should knowingly change tactics, risking the death of police officers? Simply because civilians don't like their tactics? Forgive me, but I do not believe civilians are trained or have generally experienced tactical, split second decisions police officers must make to save the lives of themselves, fellow officers and civilians. The civilians are not law enforcement experts and can not be allowed tell police what tactics they can and cant use. Yes, the tactics should consider the safety of civilians, but they shouldn't disregard the safety of officers at the expense of how happy civilians are with their work. Yes, police officers signed up and know they take risks, but no matter what tactics they use they still risk everything. By allowing untrained, inexperienced and uneducated civilians in terms of tactics and law enforcement to decide what tactics the cops should use, you are effectively sending officers to their death, the officers who have to follow the tactics that the general civilian population HAPPY with, will end up dying, and very little civilians who made sure the tactics are changed will give a shit. You can't trust the running of law enforcement in the hands of untrained and uneducated civilians in terms of law enforcement. Police Officers are people. Why would you let people change their tactics just because they aren't happy with them, and knowingly send officers to their deaths. Mothers, Fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. They are people and should not be treated with such disrespect that untrained and uneducated civilians decide what tactics to use. The police are the ones throwing themselves in the line of fire for the civilians. The civilians do not make the risky split-second decisions that cops made. I find it utterly disgraceful that people think a police officer should be subject to such ignorance and have their lives put in danger by the tactics civilians chose.

​That's exactly what I'm saying. Police serve the public. They took a job knowing it would involve risk. If they don't like the tactics they're told to operate under, then they can quit. Currently, a fair number of civilians die, or are beaten/shot, or are thrown into cages, who did not sign up to potentially have that happen to them. Does that increase risk to cops? Possibly. Too bad. No one promised them it'd be a risk-free occupation (even though it really isn't that risky a job, compared to such things as construction work).

 

I have zero respect for any argument that tries to simultaneously claim "protect and serve is a way of life/police are these heroes for being willing to put themselves in danger for the public" and "police shouldn't have to listen to the public/reducing police risk is more important than public satisfaction with the police force." Police work is a job with conditions. No one made cops take the job. They're paid reasonably for that job. Their job is to take risk to reduce risk to the general public. When they try to pass risk off to the general public, they're no longer serving the public.

Time for me to pop in I guess, and give you two pennies.

 

So if I read the list of banned things correct, does that mean beanbag/CS/Stinger/Flash-grenade launchers are not legal for PD/SD/etc to own and use now?

That's sorta dense. If suspects have barricaded them in a building, does that mean they'll have to go up to the door, roof or whatever and try not to get shot while they're grenading the suspects with less than lethal? Wouldn't it be better to stand in cover and put 4 CS canisters and 2 flashbangs thru the wall with a GL? 

 

And with camouflage, what if there is the said situation needed close sniper support? Would it be better to have a guy in a light blue uniform to lay in grass, or a one in a ghillie suit? 

No matter what the situation is, some of the banned things should be unbanned.

 

 

​That's exactly what I'm saying. Police serve the public. They took a job knowing it would involve risk. If they don't like the tactics they're told to operate under, then they can quit. Currently, a fair number of civilians die, or are beaten/shot, or are thrown into cages, who did not sign up to potentially have that happen to them. Does that increase risk to cops? Possibly. Too bad. No one promised them it'd be a risk-free occupation (even though it really isn't that risky a job, compared to such things as construction work).

​I think you miss my point. Officers should not be told what tactics to use by a general public who neither cares for the officers lives, nor knows jack shit about how police tactics work or even law enforcement. Civilians who are shot or arrested are generally criminals, and although they didn't sign up for it, they choose to live in the country or state with such laws that they broke. If they don't like the laws, they can fuck off, but if they continue to reside in said area, they must abide by them, they simply choose to break the law, and the police, by law, must stop this. In no way should both criminals and the general uneducated and uncaring public be allowed decide what the POLICE do, because they know nothing about how law enforcement works, and they don't care about risk to officers. I understand officers who join the police accepted a risk, and so do they, but I find it heavily disgusting and disrespectful that people think the risk they take to protect and serve US should be increased because some fuckers who know nothing about how law enforcement or tactics work decide they don't like the tactics. It's disgusting.

Time for me to pop in I guess, and give you two pennies.

 

So if I read the list of banned things correct, does that mean beanbag/CS/Stinger/Flash-grenade launchers are not legal for PD/SD/etc to own and use now?

That's sorta dense. If suspects have barricaded them in a building, does that mean they'll have to go up to the door, roof or whatever and try not to get shot while they're grenading the suspects with less than lethal? Wouldn't it be better to stand in cover and put 4 CS canisters and 2 flashbangs thru the wall with a GL? 

 

And with camouflage, what if there is the said situation needed close sniper support? Would it be better to have a guy in a light blue uniform to lay in grass, or a one in a ghillie suit? 

No matter what the situation is, some of the banned things should be unbanned.

 

 

This just means police have to buy those items on their own. Before yesterday, they could get all that through the government's 1033 program.

Edited May 19, 201510 yr by c13