Christ on a stick! This man continues to amaze me with every decision he makes. However, none of this equipment is hardly used by police. Tracked equipment is very rare for PDs. GLaunchers will continue to be used regardless of his proclamation. But how the literal fuck does restricting fucking camo make them less "militarized"? Police in woodland camo and police in tactical black/dark blue makes no difference. Although most officers wearing camo is there own choice, bought by their own money (AKA former vets, or officers who are tired of 5.11's terrible shit). 

 

I can only hope they the next president rescinds this .

You know, known of this would be happening if the American Government grew a brain and just FUCKING BANNED GUNS!!!!!!!!!! If America incorporated gun laws similar to that of Australia and England police would need this equipment and then wouldn't miss use it.

You know, known of this would be happening if the American Government grew a brain and just FUCKING BANNED GUNS!!!!!!!!!! If America incorporated gun laws similar to that of Australia and England police would need this equipment and then wouldn't miss use it.

Thanks for the laugh man, I really needed it right about now. 

I'd suggest you do some research before you leave a post. It's very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, and suggesting that all guns be banned immediately supports my accusation; because it's not possible. 

Seems to me people are blowing this waaaay out of proportion. Obama is simply banning the practice of the federal government giving certain weapons and tools to police for free. These guys can (and will) still buy ridiculous things, and the federal government is still handing out plenty of other equipment that is a little more useful. Things that we aren't going to be federally subsidizing anymore:

"Grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, firearms and ammunition of .50-caliber or higher will no longer be provided to state and local police agencies by the federal government under Obama's order."

Things that are not on that list?
Body armor, black fatigues, helmets, NV Goggles, M4 and M16 rifles, MRAP Wheeled armored trucks, HUMVEE's, smoke grenades and any number of things that have a valid law enforcement purpose. 

Now, department will have to justify getting the city or county to buy thier bayonets, M113 armored personal carriers, .50 cal machine guns and the like. The people of those communities might find that body/dash cams are a slightly better thing to be spending all that money on. In other words, Obama pushed militarization debates to more local governments in the communities where the debates should be happening. 

Regardless of whether you personally aren't bothered by local cops putting on MARPAT and driving around in MRAP's to respond to whatever bum-county sheriff's office decides warrants the use of the cool tools, it bothers a lot of Americans. And not just whiny California liberals, but people like retired Marine Colonel Pete Martino. Obama is trying to strike a balance between officer safety and the concerns of American citizens, who are a little bugged by the fact that this is an American street, not a Russian one. That this is the equipment that can be fielded by local police departments who don't have the money to buy body or dash cams, tools that benefit cops and the people they serve. Or maybe those federal dollars could get regular bullet proof vests to patrol officers. How many Level IIIA vests is an MRAP worth? How about the yearly maintenance cost of a HUMVEE? If we traded in 10,000 bayonets, how many new cars and uniforms could we buy the Detroit police?

Again, any police department can still buy an M113. They can still get bayonets (of which the Feds have given more than 10,000 of. WTF?) They can still by Army or Marine camo and play dress-up if they want to. They just have to get the local government to pay for the up front cost of a few of the extravagant tools, instead of the Federal government covering the cost of a tiny county in Oklahoma buying a platoon's worth of former USMC gear.

Regardless of whether you personally aren't bothered by local cops putting on MARPAT and driving around in MRAP's to respond to whatever bum-county sheriff's office decides warrants the use of the cool tools, it bothers a lot of Americans. And not just whiny California liberals, but people like retired Marine Colonel Pete Martino.

 They're not wearing military insignias and are clearly marked as LEOs.  People who are bitching about the Uniforms that they're wearing are just looking for a reason to bitch. 

MRAPs used by the police are nothing more than armoured transports. They've stripped turrets and automated defense systems off.  Works wonders against bullets, molotovs, and IEDs. All of which Police have encountered in the US on multiple occasions. It's not like they're not patrolling  in them. 

 People who are bitching about the Uniforms that they're wearing are just looking for a reason to bitch. 

 

​Spot on.

You know, known of this would be happening if the American Government grew a brain and just FUCKING BANNED GUNS!!!!!!!!!! If America incorporated gun laws similar to that of Australia and England police would need this equipment and then wouldn't miss use it.

You can NOT take away the second amendment.  What does a no gun sign do?  All it does is tell an armed criminal to come and rob and shoot me.  All a gun law like that does is disarm good citizens.  Criminal won't care about a gun law since they are going to break the law anyways.  It makes it easier for criminals.  Although I do not think there will ever be a government takeover, the right to bear arms protects the people from one.

Eh, I'm not 'looking for a reason to bitch' regarding our law enforcement officers dressing like soldiers. I think camo is pretty far down the list on important things regarding militarization, but I feel like it is a little weird when the only visual difference between some police officers and http://shatteredunion1.webs.com/ACU_Soldier2.jpg is the patch on their arm or back.

Obviously tactics and how a department uses equipment are going to be the deciding factor here, regardless of what the officers are wearing.  Still, if nothing else, choosing to dress like cops (solid dark colors) instead of the national guard is a pretty easy step to take to help people not feel like their police department is pretending to be the Army. After all, most of the camo choices don't even make sense. Why would woodland MARPAT be a good choice for St. Louis? Or UCP for southern California? Especially considering both of those examples the police were very publicly responding to a then-peaceful crowd, not a gunman who they needed to hide from. What's the problem with encouraging departments to dress like cops and not soldiers?

Eh, I'm not 'looking for a reason to bitch' regarding our law enforcement officers dressing like soldiers. I think camo is pretty far down the list on important things regarding militarization, but I feel like it is a little weird when the only visual difference between some police officers and http://shatteredunion1.webs.com/ACU_Soldier2.jpg is the patch on their arm or back.

Obviously tactics and how a department uses equipment are going to be the deciding factor here, regardless of what the officers are wearing.  Still, if nothing else, choosing to dress like cops (solid dark colors) instead of the national guard is a pretty easy step to take to help people not feel like their police department is pretending to be the Army. After all, most of the camo choices don't even make sense. Why would woodland MARPAT be a good choice for St. Louis? Or UCP for southern California? Especially considering both of those examples the police were very publicly responding to a then-peaceful crowd, not a gunman who they needed to hide from. What's the problem with encouraging departments to dress like cops and not soldiers?

​The reason the officers you have shown pictures of are wearing ACU pattern uniforms is probably because that is what they could get for free from the military. It doesn't have anything with them trying to look like the Army. If the military gave them free BDUs they would probably wear that. Regardless, police do not wear camo on a regular basis. If you see police walking around in big plate carrier vests and camo the last thing you should be worried about is what they are wearing. Your average police officer that most citizens come in contact with wear regular police uniforms and look like regular police officers. If a situation comes up in my neighborhood where a SWAT team is needed, the last thing I will care about is what pattern is printed on their uniforms.

What's the problem with encouraging departments to dress like cops and not soldiers?

​Because gear-nuts think gear is cool. There's no reason for cops to be in camouflage with assault rifles on the back of an armored vehicle when responding to a protest, but boys that are given toys are going to want to play with them. 

And now they are butthurt because the president is trying to take away some of their toys.

​Because gear-nuts think gear is cool. There's no reason for cops to be in camouflage with assault rifles on the back of an armored vehicle when responding to a protest, but boys that are given toys are going to want to play with them. 

And now they are butthurt because the president is trying to take away some of their toys.

​As I said in my post above, the biggest reason for camo is because it is the cheapest and easiest thing for departments to get their hands on. If you are a police chief or sheriff and you had the option of using money from your budget to buy black or blue tactical uniforms or you can get the exact same uniforms (only difference being they are camo) from the military for free what would you choose? As for the reason they respond to protests the way they did was because of the way they turn out. Have you seen a legitimate peaceful protest where the police brought out armored vehicles? I haven't. Ferguson, Baltimore, and all of the other protests across the US where armored vehicles were used was because there were people destroying property and attacking people.

​As I said in my post above, the biggest reason for camo is because it is the cheapest and easiest thing for departments to get their hands on. If you are a police chief or sheriff and you had the option of using money from your budget to buy black or blue tactical uniforms or you can get the exact same uniforms (only difference being they are camo) from the military for free what would you choose? As for the reason they respond to protests the way they did was because of the way they turn out. Have you seen a legitimate peaceful protest where the police brought out armored vehicles? I haven't. Ferguson, Baltimore, and all of the other protests across the US where armored vehicles were used was because there were people destroying property and attacking people.

​Here is just one image, pulled from twitter, of heavily armed police in camouflage that brought an armed vehicle to a peaceful protest. A more appropriate response would have been a few patrol officers standing next to their cars

Edited May 23, 201510 yr by Riley24

What city was this?  What were they protesting about?  Was the protest starting to get violent so the police showed up to control it?  These are questions we must know before making a judgment.

​Here is just one image, pulled from twitter, of heavily armed police in camouflage that brought an armed vehicle to a peaceful protest. 

​If that was Ferguson, your argument loses all credibility because there was looting on the first night.

​If that was Ferguson, your argument loses all credibility because there was looting on the first night.

​Exactly, maybe a better protest would be NY. They know how to properly protest in the city lol

Thanks for the laugh man, I really needed it right about now. 

I'd suggest you do some research before you leave a post. It's very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about, and suggesting that all guns be banned immediately supports my accusation; because it's not possible. 

​Yeah, sorry about that, wasn't really thinking and just wrote the first thing that came to mind.

​If that was Ferguson, your argument loses all credibility because there was looting on the first night.

​But there was protesting (some peaceful, some not) all across the city. Its still unacceptable, under nearly any circumstance, to bring an APC and a small army of cops to a group of people exercising their right to assemble. Standing on the sidewalk with a sign is not a crime, its a constitutional right. 

And that's not what happened on the first night. What happened on the first night was a K-9 officer allowed his dog to urinate on a memorial for Michael Brown, and police vehicles crushed the memorial a short while later. The looting happened the next night. If you're going to go into specifics of the situation, please make sure you get the timeline right.

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

 

The overall problem here, and why this policy is being put in place, is because as we found out, police departments aren't well trained enough to know how to handle these types of situations without completely destroying their relationship with the community the protect. There is a time for gear like this, and there is a time for the police to be violent, they just need to be better at knowing when that time is. 

Edited May 24, 201510 yr by Riley24

​Here is just one image, pulled from twitter, of heavily armed police in camouflage that brought an armed vehicle to a peaceful protest. A more appropriate response would have been a few patrol officers standing next to their cars

Yes, I'm sure sending some cops in patrol cars would have been a brilliant idea. 

Absolutely perfect plan. You'd only end with, oh I don't know, a few beaten up injured cops and destroyed cop cars. Yeah. And you know what the general public would have said if asked about their opinion on it? "Oh, the police should have been more proactive and aware of the situation they were handling and sent more armoured units to deal with it instead"

The general public will never be happy, they wouldn't give a shit if a cop was beaten to death at a "peaceful protest", and would just say "should have sent armoured units"

Yes, I'm sure sending some cops in patrol cars would have been a brilliant idea. 

Absolutely perfect plan. You'd only end with, oh I don't know, a few beaten up injured cops and destroyed cop cars. Yeah. And you know what the general public would have said if asked about their opinion on it? "Oh, the police should have been more proactive and aware of the situation they were handling and sent more armoured units to deal with it instead"

The general public will never be happy, they wouldn't give a shit if a cop was beaten to death at a "peaceful protest", and would just say "should have sent armoured units"

​But THEY are not the ones burning police cars. THEY are not the ones lighting fires or looting. THEY are exercising the same exact constitutional right that THESE people are:

​But there was protesting (some peaceful, some not) all across the city. Its still unacceptable, under nearly any circumstance, to bring an APC and a small army of cops to a group of people exercising their right to assemble. Standing on the sidewalk with a sign is not a crime, its a constitutional right. 

And that's not what happened on the first night. What happened on the first night was a K-9 officer allowed his dog to urinate on a memorial for Michael Brown, and police vehicles crushed the memorial a short while later. The looting happened the next day. If you're going to go into specifics of the situation, please make sure you get the timeline right.

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/08/ferguson-st-louis-police-tactics-dogs-michael-brown

First of all, police want to make their presence known so people will think twice about turning to violence.  Second, Mike Brown is a scumbag.  He attacked Darren Wilson.  Now Wilson is receiving threats, his family members are getting threatsthreats, and his career is over just for doing his job.  Mike Brown doesn't deserve a memorial in my opinion.