After Dallas - No such thing as militarization of police

[j-shot]

After Dallas - No such thing as militarization of police

I was never a believer in the thought process that law enforcement could ever have access to too much equipment.

After Dallas, the entire country should feel the same.

What I saw on the news during this COWARDLY ambush:

98% (an estimate) of officers had pistols drawn. Opposing a distant, elevated enemy. Why couldn't these police have been armed with an M4, Mini 14, or whatever? Very FEW officers had rifles!

Officers running toward gunfire, to escort the public, to retrieve the fallen. Why couldn't these officers have an armored transport? APC? Whatever...?

Officers taking cover behind buildings, cars, landscape, etc. Why couldn't these police have helmets? Face shields? Body armor?

This is B.S.

We aren't gonna have anybody left to police our decaying society. They will be killed or just outright quit.

[JTizel]

Under payed, under trained, with ZERO additional funds to entertain such a thought in a manner in which it is as effective as we would like to see. Was it St. Louis that we saw APC and militarization in which it outraged the "peaceful" community and scared the nation?

[j-shot]

Under payed, under trained, with ZERO additional funds to entertain such a thought in a manner in which it is as effective as we would like to see. Was it St. Louis that we saw APC and militarization in which it outraged the "peaceful" community and scared the nation?

I believe. And that city burned. They needed 100 APCs on the street there.

[mt4design]

One of the first officers hit was a DART officer who had served three tours overseas.

In the opening moments he didn't stand a chance. Truly tragic.

[JTizel]

I believe. And that city burned. They needed 100 APCs on the street there.

Sadly, tyrants and media painted it as escalation of force. Feelings were hurt.

[Messerschmitts]

I'm conflicted about this. Police need access to the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves and the people. However, over-militarization of the police can also lead down a dangerous road of sacrificing too much liberty for security. No one wants to see lawless rioting, but no one wants a heavily armed police state ready to squash anyone the government doesn't agree with. It's a double-edged sword, a tightrope that needs to be walked carefully.

[kygen]

I'm conflicted about this. Police need access to the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves and the people. However, over-militarization of the police can also lead down a dangerous road of sacrificing too much liberty for security. No one wants to see lawless rioting, but no one wants a heavily armed police state ready to squash anyone the government doesn't agree with. It's a double-edged sword, a tightrope that needs to be walked carefully.

Exactly.

When you look like an occupying army, people will treat you as such.

We have to be careful about this.

[j-shot]

I'm conflicted about this. Police need access to the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves and the people. However, over-militarization of the police can also lead down a dangerous road of sacrificing too much liberty for security. No one wants to see lawless rioting, but no one wants a heavily armed police state ready to squash anyone the government doesn't agree with. It's a double-edged sword, a tightrope that needs to be walked carefully.

I think the .gov would attempt to utilize the military but regardless, both are outnumbered by the people.

[SVT-40]

Heck, I'd come out of retirement to fly an Apache!!!

But point made... In any potential riot situation officers should be equipped with riot gear...

[diverwcw]

I'm conflicted about this. Police need access to the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves and the people. However, over-militarization of the police can also lead down a dangerous road of sacrificing too much liberty for security. No one wants to see lawless rioting, but no one wants a heavily armed police state ready to squash anyone the government doesn't agree with. It's a double-edged sword, a tightrope that needs to be walked carefully.

Second this.

Emphasis added as to this is the way it would surely go.

[CitaDeL]

After Dallas, there might not be a Second Amendment for veterans- Forget the gear, the training according to the progressives now represents a danger to public safety.

[kaligaran]

I'm conflicted about this. Police need access to the equipment they need to do their jobs and protect themselves and the people. However, over-militarization of the police can also lead down a dangerous road of sacrificing too much liberty for security. No one wants to see lawless rioting, but no one wants a heavily armed police state ready to squash anyone the government doesn't agree with. It's a double-edged sword, a tightrope that needs to be walked carefully.

Well put.

OP, I also support good cops and want our LEOs to have the appropriate tools to do the job and go home at the end of the day.

Most cops (idk about Dallas but the cops I know personally) do have rifles and gear (plate carriers/helmets/etc and the like that you mentioned) in their patrol cars.

I know some of the cops in Dallas had a rifle when the attack occurred. Maybe it was personal preference to carry it? I don't know their policies there, do you?

Using an APC to get to a fallen co-worker makes sense.
But simply bullet proofing their patrol cars instead of giving them APCs which I think would make even more sense and is practical.
Some PPVs (police pursuit vehicles) have bullet proof panels in them anyway. That makes sense.

I remember seeing APCs rolling through Boston with a group of LEOs going on foot from door to door. That's not an appropriate use of them IMO.


As the saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[wireless]

I was listening to a commentator on CNN and he made a good point. When he joined Law Enforcement in the 80's he was issued a 6 shot .38 S&W revolver. In the early 90's they changed that to a 9mm glock so that they could be adequately armed since criminals were now mostly using semi auto pistols with "high" capacity magazines. After North Hollywood shoot out, his department was issued AR15's so they weren't stuck with 9mm and 12g shotguns. That was decades ago...why a huge agency like Dallas hasn't been issued AR15's is beyond me? I'd say half the police cars I see now have an AR15 in the center counsel locking cage thing.

I don't have any issue with the police being issued old military firearms. As technology advances and the general population becomes equipped with more advanced arms so should the police. After all, the police are citizens that we give power to enforce the law. To me it makes complete sense that they should have the same firearms we do and vice versa. My biggest concern is a slow erosion of the 4th amendment, coupled with a "war on drugs" (aka The People), politicians who advocate for disarming the general public, and the addition of more advanced weaponry for the police department. It's the combination of all these things that is slowly turning our citizen created police force into a pseudo-military. The media and politicians focus on guns and "military vehicles". Technology is not the problem. There will always be a fluid development of new arms and technology to combat those new arms. Government's insidious, covert attack on our 2nd and 4th amendment is the real problem. This slow erosion of our rights is creating the "militarization of police". Even the liberal media can see how dangerous this is. For whatever reason they are too stupid or ignorant to see this for what it is. Think about it, they advocate for disarming the general public while simultaneously complain about "police militarization". The liberal delusion of statist run utopia is so convoluted and blind that they can't even see what they are advocating for. This is how I see the average statist:

[gruntinhusaybah]

Are you guys talking about thier equipment when you say "militarization"? Because equipment has nothing to do with them being police.

They are still bound by the constitution and case law. Just because their equipment has evolved does not mean they are no longer the police and bound by laws.

Look back in history some and you'll see police have dressed just like the military for, well, ever. Police has always been a paramilitary enterprise.

There's historical photos of police on motorcycles with machine guns. Police with BARs. Thompsons etc. but they didn't magically turn into the Army. No matter what uniform they wear, they are still bound by use of force law, the constitution, and case law.

[k1dude]

They just need to put Hello Kitty stickers on the APC's and paint their AR's pink.