The “militarization” of police was not only inevitable, but necessary

Hot Air ^ | August 16, 2014 | Jazz Shaw

[Pox]

My only comment would be:

Molotov Cocktails are severely underrated! :)

[ctdonath2]

Considering the Black Panther-led riots of late in Ferguson, another truism of militarization emerges:

If you’re not willing to use the weapons you have, your opponent will not care you are armed.

MRAPs, machineguns, advanced body armor, etc are scary when putting on a “show of force”, but if the police demonstrate an unwillingness to _use_ it, impotence is proven and evil is unleashed.

[JRandomFreeper]

I have a relationship with my local police. And my local elected officials. To remind them that they shouldn't be taking military equipment from the feds.

I reminded my senator Cruz that the feds need to not be giving out military equipment.

The feds giving real military equipment to real local cops isn't a frigging analogy. It's real. It's deadly serious real.

/johnny

[MarMema]

If you walk around with a hammer all day, everything begins to look like a nail.

Perfect.

[jetson]

We just need to train the cops in throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks so the fight is even. Don't cha know!

[ifinnegan]

What do you call “military equipment” that police should not have?

[Nebr FAL owner]

You are free to disagree but I notice that you do not address the main point that I made & that is that the local leo’s whether you call them police or sheriffs or town marshals are an entirely different breed of cat than the military & that they have entirely different duties/responsibilities.

The local leo’s are charged with the keeping of civil order & the “peace” & that the military is charged with the killing of the enemies of the STATE(nation) & breaking their stuff & when you either militarize the police or make the military do police work the result is the CITIZENRY end up being VIEWED as the ENEMIES OF THE STATE.

[JRandomFreeper]

Anything the military gives as surplus to the local police.

There's hundreds of millions of dollars worth transferred every year.

I don't want local cops to have issue firearms, except for special squads, much less MRAPs and full-auto weapons.

/johnny

[Flycatcher]

The local didn't shoot the dog. He didn't need his gun at all. He needed a towel or a smock to protect his dry-cleaning.

That is so idealistically saccharine that I'm tearing up right now. Almost seriously.

But you've got me thinking. I'm an extremely frugal person, and you may have a point about saving the taxpayer money. Local law enforcement probably can go without weaponry. Guns, bullets, they cost money.

But towels and smocks are cheap. We agree! Towels and smocks for the Men in Blue!

Just hope the ones who work in the inner city have a good life insurance policy.

[OneWingedShark]

The term militarization of police is at most an analogy.

Nope — I was in the Army for 9 years; I believe the term "militarization of police" is both accurate and literal based on my own experience.
Please present evidence that it is not.

You seem to be taking it literally. This is why I said I found your comments specious or not serious.

I think Null and Void has a series of police photos that adequately prove literal police militarization.

“Serious enough to take the time, because of this thread, to write my State and Federal elected officials, reminding them of my position that police at all levels need to be de-militarized, and their budgets reduced significantly.”

Police are local. It is telling that you want the Federal government to be able to control what a local community decides to do with their own money.

Several items:

1. A significant portion of the funds and equipment used in militarizing the police is federal.
2. There are multiple federal regulatory agencies with their own SWAT, to include the Dept. of Education.
3. Note that JRandomFreeper said both state and federal.

These three items severely undermine your assertion that he is for federal control of police.

Police are local. It is telling that you want the Federal government to be able to control what a local community decides to do with their own money.

Again, there is a federal funding issue here.
It is appropriate to bring such federal issue up with the federal representative/senator.

I agree that Federal grants to local police can be a type of honey-trap and that can be addressed Federally and locally.

Then why are you assuming evil intent on JRandomFreeper's part?

[JRandomFreeper]

The expensive firearms for police don't result in lower crime rates or gang-bangers taking dirt naps.

If they want heavy firepower, they need to clear out the nests of ferals, but that is dangerous. And all the firepower that has been shoved at cops hasn't worked.

If it doesn't work, stop doing it. It's not a difficult concept.

And the up-armored cops are pissing off the voters that pay for that crap. The money will stop flowing as a result.

/johnny

[Nebr FAL owner]

wank should be walk

[Yashcheritsiy]

The “militarization” of police was not only inevitable, but necessary

Well no, it was not. The police were fully capable of handling riots before they started getting surplus MRAPs and full auto rifles.

[JRandomFreeper]

Personally, I didn't get any assumption of evil intent on my part from anyone.

All of the pro-militarized LEO posters have been civil, for the most part, outside of some hyperbole.

It's been a productive conversation. I've actually taken action to contact local, federal, and state elected and appointed officials with my position.

/johnny

[Yashcheritsiy]

It’s interesting because arguing against the “militarization of police” ultimately is saying that more power has to go to State and Federal government than local.

Incorrect, because the issue with "militarisation of the police" is not so much about the equipment they carry as the attitudes they display. THAT'S not going to be fixed, just by giving the local po-po more power than the state and the feds.

[Nebr FAL owner]

Elected officials still are in control of the police in this country & if the mayor says you don’t go shooting folks for looting & you are the guy on the beat you don’t go capping a gangbanger stealing a case of beer.

[JRandomFreeper]

I suppose it depends on the 'yout' wanking or walking into the local hardware store. Keyboard errors only strike when you are making a particularly good point. ;)

/johnny

[Flycatcher]

The expensive firearms for police don't result in lower crime rates or gang-bangers taking dirt naps.

So you're advocating for wet noodles again?

[JRandomFreeper]

Nope. Radio for most. Firearms for a special squad.

If police can't go in some neighborhoods without each and every one of them carrying heavy weapons, that neighborhood needs a rework that the police aren't currently doing.

Gotta rethink what is going to work, and quit doing what doesn't work.

I'm not paying for you police to keep things as they are, I'm paying for you to work yourselves out of a job.

/johnny

[Celtic Conservative]

That’s an interesting observation. Do we want:

A. “GET ON THE GROUND!! GETONTHEGROUNDNOW!!!”

OR:

B. “ Boy, you is in a heap of trouble!”

You’re right, I would take “B” as well.

CC