ahem... you were saying??? and this is just boston! 
Should also note that the “militarized equipment” people seem to obsess about most are the vehicles. No matter how armored, they aren’t armed, so they are purely defensive.
You can argue legitimately about whether they’re a good idea, but not that they’re armed military vehicles.
What would it take to arm them?
My guess is minutes.
Equipping domestic police with vehicles that are designed as platforms for weapons for military use, even if they are not currently armed - is a harbinger of their future use as a combat platform WITH military weaponry, else why use them at all?
If police are not to be used as a domestic military 'civilian security force', then why not let vehicles designed for civilian transport (I'm fine with armored cars like Brinks trucks etc.) suffice for police?
If the foundational design of a vehicle is for the purpose of being used in a combat role and a weapons platform - regardless that it is argued it is 'merely defensive' (which is bunk BTW), it would take nothing to use those vehicles for the purpose they were designed and intended, which is to mount military weaponry .
I don't give a rat's ass if it is argued it is defensive or not. Such a platform can and WILL be used in an offensive manner against civilians at some point.
Especially if you understand that 'fundamental transformation' was about establishing a Marxist coup that always starts velvety and runs red when consolidation of power takes place.
ahem... you were saying??? and this is just boston!