I just find it sad that police departments in America feel the need to use armored vehicles. Don't get me wrong, I understand that they want to feel safe, but there's an underlying issue here that violence is on the rise. The response to that shouldn't be more violance, or bigger and badder toys, it should be finding a solution to the increase in violent acts against civilans and police alike. 

​Well things are already in place to decrease violent acts by cops(though it's been decreasing, even way before this police brutality "trend"). I don't think there's anything you can do to proactively decrease violence among citizens. People will be people, and I honestly believe that America will never be as peaceful as it should be. Like your country for example

Like your country for example

​My country isn't peaceful in all places, but I'd argue it's more peaceful than America at the moment. 

I just find it sad that police departments in America feel the need to use armored vehicles. Don't get me wrong, I understand that they want to feel safe, but there's an underlying issue here that violence is on the rise. The response to that shouldn't be more violance, or bigger and badder toys, it should be finding a solution to the increase in violent acts against civilans and police alike. 

​As BlackJesus1 said, violence is actually on a sharp decrease in the United States. Every country has different crime because every country is different. As I've said before, what American police may fear is something that police in France may not even think about. Police should always try their best to keep the peace, but that doesn't mean that police should just sit by and take it up the butt. If a crime is committed, then the criminal is going to suffer the consequences. If large groups of people decide to commit crime, then they'll be dispersed and punished accordingly. Sometimes the problem to solving crime isn't as easy as changing something, and most of the time it isn't. The United States has a history of devastating riots. I previously mentioned the 98' riots, 50 people were killed during those riots. The National Guard was called in. The Ferguson riots, the National Guard was called in because the Chief of Police said that the department could not contain the riots. The National Guard was shot at. If the police were able to contain the 98' riots, 50 people probably wouldn't have been killed. If the police were able to contain the Ferguson riots, the Chief of Police for Ferguson wouldn't have said, "We are not able to contain the rioting", and the National Guard wouldn't have been called in. What police do in other countries is irrelevant to what police should do here in the United States. Police here will do what they feel is necessary, and if they think that an armored car is necessary, then more power to them. At the end of the day, we have to continue to live here in the United States, not those of you outside of the United States saying that the equipment they use isn't necessary. It's not like the police are programmed robots designed to murder innocent people left and right. They have families, friends, homes, children, and lives as well. At the end of the day, most of them only want what the people want. A peaceful, safe, and friendly environment; and when you have people setting things on fire, it becomes less and less possible. If an armored truck is the quickest and easiest way to help bring peace, then send in two of em'.

Edited May 21, 201510 yr by IntentionalDefiance

​As BlackJesus1 said, violence is actually on a sharp decrease in the United States. Every country has different crime because every country is different. As I've said before, what American police may fear is something that police in France may not even think about. Police should always try their best to keep the peace, but that doesn't mean that police should just sit by and take it up the butt. If a crime is committed, then the criminal is going to suffer the consequences. If large groups of people decide to commit crime, then they'll be dispersed and punished accordingly. Sometimes the problem to solving crime isn't as easy as changing something, and most of the time it isn't. The United States has a history of devastating riots. I previously mentioned the 98' riots, 50 people were killed during those riots. The National Guard was called in. The Ferguson riots, the National Guard was called in because the Chief of Police said that the department could not contain the riots. The National Guard was shot at. If the police were able to contain the 98' riots, 50 people probably wouldn't have been killed. If the police were able to contain the Ferguson riots, the Chief of Police for Ferguson wouldn't have said, "We are not able to contain the rioting", and the National Guard wouldn't have been called in. What police do in other countries is irrelevant to what police should do here in the United States. Police here will do what they feel is necessary, and if they think that an armored car is necessary, then more power to them. At the end of the day, we have to continue to live here in the United States, not those of you outside of the United States saying that the equipment they use isn't necessary. It's not like the police are programmed robots designed to murder innocent people left and right. They have families, friends, homes, children, and lives as well. At the end of the day, most of them only want what the people want. A peaceful, safe, and friendly environment; and when you have people setting things on fire, it becomes less and less possible. If an armored truck is the quickest and easiest way to help bring peace, then send in two of em'.

I can't agree more on this. You've said it very well. Not one of the cops out there wants to be beating people, pushing them back, having abuse and rocks hurled at them. But they have a duty to protect and serve, so they go out there anyway. We should not allow people to decrease the safety of officers against ruthless criminals. They are criminals for a reason, is the world starting to try stand for those who break the law and those who want nothing but anarchy until they get what they want? I hope not. The police response to the riots is completely justified. Let's remember, these "peaceful protestors" are the ones cutting the water hose to fire trucks, attacking firefighters, blocking in cop cars, ambulances and Fire trucks to stop them responding to emergencies and saving LIVES. They don't care, they do what they want. So they should be dispersed by Police and punished accordingly. 

I understand that cops aren't animals, I believe that you misunderstand me. It shouldn't have to be like that at all. Why do the cops have to take to violance and military-like equiptment? Why, because people have access to tools that makes this kind of behaviour possible. Why not spend resources on limiting the chances of violent outbursts and riots, instead of violent means to literally fight it? 

I understand that cops aren't animals, I believe that you misunderstand me. It shouldn't have to be like that at all. Why do the cops have to take to violance and military-like equiptment? Why, because people have access to tools that makes this kind of behaviour possible. Why not spend resources on limiting the chances of violent outbursts and riots, instead of violent means to literally fight it? 

I wouldn't necessarily say that they have acces to certain tools. Whether they have tools or not, they'll still commit crime and break things. Police have the equipment that they currently possess because it's helped save countless lives. When a hostage situation is reported, I don't mind seeing a few snipers on the roofs, or an armored truck, or police officers with assault rifles and grenade launchers. I'm not saying that if a criminal throws a punch, the police should launch a grenade launcher. That's above and beyond retarded.  We've seen what can happen when the police aren't as equipped as the criminal, and the goal here is for police to ALWAYS be better equipped than everyone else. As 13ubba said, the police don't just sit around and wait until something happens. They respond, ready to do their job and keep the peace. Once police start running up and down the street beating and murdering people at random, then I'll support removing these tools. 

I also think that people are underestimating the capabilities of a riot. A riot is a complete state of lawlessness on a massive scale. Not sure how things are in Sweden or Australia but in the United States, rioters like to throw things. They like to throw things at moving vehicles. They like to throw things at moving, under armored, police vehicles. I recommend you try to drive through an anti-police riot with a standard police cruiser. I don't think you'd get very far. Plus, armored vehicles provide easy transportation for riot officers. I don't think 15 officers can fit in a regular police car. Why send multiple cars when you can send one truck? I just can't see any logic here. 

Also, these rioters are criminals. They don't give a flying pile of poop what happens. They want to commit crime. They want to see chaos. They want to see destruction. It's like trying to convince Adolf Hitler that all people were created equal. It just won't work. Their goal is to rob and steal and kill and burn and destroy. The only way to fight behavior like this is with more force and power. It's like trying to fight ISIS with diplomacy. Diplomacy isn't their goal, and it's not what they care about. 

Edited May 22, 201510 yr by IntentionalDefiance
Sorry for any typos, iPhone has a terrible autocorrect.

I understand that cops aren't animals, I believe that you misunderstand me. It shouldn't have to be like that at all. Why do the cops have to take to violance and military-like equiptment? Why, because people have access to tools that makes this kind of behaviour possible. Why not spend resources on limiting the chances of violent outbursts and riots, instead of violent means to literally fight it? 

​Because sometimes there is no other option. As much as police would love to go back to the days of carrying a handgun and shotgun around unfortunately it has been proven that the world has become increasingly more dangerous and these are the tools they need to perform their duties.

​Because sometimes there is no other option. As much as police would love to go back to the days of carrying a handgun and shotgun around unfortunately it has been proven that the world has become increasingly more dangerous and these are the tools they need to perform their duties.

​I'm not blind to the violence either, that it is an increasingly violent world, but does it really have to be that way? I might be naive in thinking it can be fixed, but I don't want to give up all hope that our humanity is lost. 

​I'm not blind to the violence either, that it is an increasingly violent world, but does it really have to be that way? I might be naive in thinking it can be fixed, but I don't want to give up all hope that our humanity is lost. 

Don't mean to sound negative but... It kinda is lost man. :P

​I'm not blind to the violence either, that it is an increasingly violent world, but does it really have to be that way? I might be naive in thinking it can be fixed, but I don't want to give up all hope that our humanity is lost. 

It's a nice thought, less violence, world peace. It'll never happen because as long as there are two people on earth, someones gonna want someone dead. Only when a single human walks the earth will there be peace

It's a nice thought, less violence, world peace. It'll never happen because as long as there are two people on earth, someones gonna want someone dead. Only when a single human walks the earth will there be peace

​I wasn't aiming for world peace either, it doesn't have to be 2 extremes, does it? Again, I understand America is a different culture to what I am used to, but we've had violent riots here too, and no heavily armored vehicles such as a Bearcat was ever needed. 

I don't think Obama is doing the wrong thing, but of course, I don't live in America and as such I may not fully understand the situation that Americans do. 

​I wasn't aiming for world peace either, it doesn't have to be 2 extremes, does it? Again, I understand America is a different culture to what I am used to, but we've had violent riots here too, and no heavily armored vehicles such as a Bearcat was ever needed. 

I don't think Obama is doing the wrong thing, but of course, I don't live in America and as such I may not fully understand the situation that Americans do. 

Did Sweden ever have riots where people were killed?

Not that I am aware of, but the ones I can think of on the top of my head are these 2: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_during_the_EU_summit_in_Gothenburg_2001 

 

​I wasn't aiming for world peace either, it doesn't have to be 2 extremes, does it? Again, I understand America is a different culture to what I am used to, but we've had violent riots here too, and no heavily armored vehicles such as a Bearcat was ever needed. 

I don't think Obama is doing the wrong thing, but of course, I don't live in America and as such I may not fully understand the situation that Americans do. 

I would think that the reason you don't have massive armoured trucks responding to riots is because Sweden isn't used to such violent and common riots, or such common shootings or Huh crime rates, so have less high grade equipment to deal with such situations. I do remember seeing heavily armoured Swedish Police APC's though 

Not that I am aware of, but the ones I can think of on the top of my head are these 2: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_during_the_EU_summit_in_Gothenburg_2001 

 

In neither of those riots were people killed. In the LA riots 50 were killed by mob attacks and shootings. 

​I wasn't aiming for world peace either, it doesn't have to be 2 extremes, does it? Again, I understand America is a different culture to what I am used to, but we've had violent riots here too, and no heavily armored vehicles such as a Bearcat was ever needed. 

I don't think Obama is doing the wrong thing, but of course, I don't live in America and as such I may not fully understand the situation that Americans do. 

​It is a cultural thing. Look at the statistics of shootings and other violent crimes in the U.S. compared to other 1st world countries, huge difference.

In neither of those riots were people killed. In the LA riots 50 were killed by mob attacks and shootings. 

​Of course, I did not say anyone was killed in either of aforementioned riots. 

​It is a cultural thing. Look at the statistics of shootings and other violent crimes in the U.S. compared to other 1st world countries, huge difference.

​Indeed, and it's a cultural thing I am aware of. I just find it sad, that's all. 

Wait a second, how do police deal with violent armed criminals if the police aren't armed themselves?  It sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Wait a second, how do police deal with violent armed criminals if the police aren't armed themselves?  It sounds like an oxymoron to me.

​They can't, which is why this president should have been gone already. I used to love this guy, and I actually still do. I just don't think he's a good president.

This is why we need a conservative president.  Someone like Ted Cruz or Rick Perry wouldn't mess around on situations like taking away our second amendment and would stop crime and terrorism before it blows out of proportion.