Replies

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:

A significant portion of the funds and equipment used in militarizing the police is federal.
There are multiple federal regulatory agencies with their own SWAT, to include the Dept. of Education.
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?

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