[skeeter]

I'm against the militarization we're seeing as well, of ALL of the various federal departments. I'm against militarization of police - its not necessary to be so equipped during the course of typical domestic crime prevention activities.

But I'm not sure how law enforcement can deal with a full scale riot without it looking something like a military operation.

[Enlightened1]

That's why states have a National Guard. In case the local police cannot handle it.

Like you I'm against militarizing the police. That's for 3rd world $hit holes.

I'm astounded how many people on this board want to see the police in military hardware.

[jobim]

Agreed. Riot control is a particular quagmire requiring special response. Were there a dedicated riot-response plan, and equipment, that makes sense, but might that not be the purview of the National Guard? Mark Steyn weighed in also mostly concerned about police militarization.

Several issues here:
1)RIOT: as I proposed above
2)LETHAL FORCE: in too many cases, too quick to move to ultimate response (shooting). I was in Honolulu 2 weeks ago and the cops shot & killed a drunk driver direcly below my hotel, and many raised questions
3)POLICE MILITARIZATION: for me (and evidently Paul & Steyn) this is the most important issue, and a Republican administration needs to run & govern on the promise to return police work to the way it was, and the equipment goes back to NG or other military
4)GHETTO BLACKS OUT OF CONTROL: I was a high school student in Chicago in the 1960s & have first hand knowledge of all that