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.
Its somewhat analogous to 2nd amendment issue where the anti-right-to-bear side says big brother will take care of you, so you don’t need guns.
Here it is big big brother will come in and take care of your city if there are any problems, so you don’t need equipment to deal with riots or other threats to your city.
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.
Its somewhat analogous to 2nd amendment issue where the anti-right-to-bear side says big brother will take care of you, so you don’t need guns.
Here it is big big brother will come in and take care of your city if there are any problems, so you don’t need equipment to deal with riots or other threats to your city.
The point is those threats are vanishingly rare in most cases, and out of all proportion to the equimpment. To justify the expense, they have to use it, so the rules of engagement get looser and looser.
I’ll take my chances with the occasional riot.
You have it backwards arguing against the militarization of police means that more power & more accountability goes to city /town/state governments not federal authorities.
The federal govt. is using the offer of federal military equipment as the thin edge of a wedge to get local leo’s to work for “multi-jurisdiction task forces with the Feds in charge doling out money from confiscation of property that is sold at auction .
This is not only a militarization of policing problem but a law enforcement for profit problem as well.
Not necessarily — one could simply believe as Adama of Battlestar Galactica: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.
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.