What are your thoughts on “Militarizing the Police?”

Sir,I'd have to respectfully disagree with a few points.
"Yes there are bad apples as in any profession"- While this is true, not many professions are composed of individuals whose job it is to use their discretion in physically subduing someone by force.
"Unfortunately, over-sensationalism and ignorance on the part of civil and community leaders has created this mess."- Rogue cops created this mess. The sensationalism is a response to the public's awareness of it via technology. Cops can't continue to needlessly hurt people and expect that nobody is watching them.
"Higher recruiting standards would require higher pay for police officers."- Small price to pay. How much does a civil suit cost a department? For that matter, what is a life worth?
The hiring standards, for many departments are simply too low. Their training is inefficient. Instead of militarizing the police departments (aside from armored vehicles), it would make more sense to expand SWAT forces, who are highly trained, in comparison.
If we must hand these guys assault weapons, I just don't see how arming the weakest link that a police department has to "offer" is going to solve anything.
Coming from a police and military family, I believe that most officers take their jobs very seriously. Their hearts are in the right place. And even saying that, there are too many videos out there that demonstrate that quite a few abuse their powers. It does need to be addressed. I just don't think it's feasible to arm them without extensive training. But first, weed out the mavericks. Hold them accountable. There's a good 'ol boy system in place way too often.
In the military, they take weapons away from SMs who have mental health issues. We don't see the same standard for police officers. Why in the world would we think that militarizing them even more would help the problem? We have to delve deeper into why this is going on in the first place.

I think the term militarization is being confused with increasing force protection. In the latest events that sparked these discussions, I can't agree that people were needlessly hurt. One was shot because he was trying cause harm to a police officer in the rightful execution of his duties. The other died because he was obese and had a heart attack after being physically over exerted from resisting a lawful effort at an arrest. If militarization was not necessary, even if at least for a show of force then we would never need the National Guard to be employed in a law enforcement capacity. A force less trained and less experienced than a police force. And to address another post further up, it is not illegal or wrong to point a weapon at an unarmed person. Many times in law enforcement you present your weapon at unarmed subject. You never know the intent of a suspect, you never know if he is potentially armed. Despite the belief of many ignorant people in the media, unarmed bad guys can kill someone too. Police officers have a plethora of weapons on their person that can be used against them if an assailant gets the upper hand. They don't have super powers and can't subdue everyone physically. So using deadly force to protect themselves is totally acceptable and justifiable.

Sir, why is acceptable for a police officer to draw a weapon on an unarmed person because they dont know the intent of that person and not for an average citizen? If a PVT in a combat zone can show better application and understand of escalation of force than a police officer, there is something wrong. Im not specifically talking about the two incidents being talked about in the media right now.

1LT Shacklett, I am a military police officer, and I know first hand than unarmed subject does not mean they are harmless. Look at Michael Brown as he was unarmed yet he was uncomplaint, he was a suspect in a robbery (he attacked the store clerk on his way out so its a stong armed robbery), he was over 6ft tall and at least 250 lbs (much larger than Officer Wilson), he failed to obey a police officer during apprehension, he resisted arrest and he attacked a police officer. If he had done this to a civilian who had the proper documentatiion to carry a fire arm, that civilian would be with in his or her rights to defend theirself with deadly force. The media and false statements helped spread the fire about officers being loose pistols shooting anyone they want without going through the proper steps of rules of engagement so to speak. Now, as an MP, we are not trained to draw our fire arms out on an unarmed person because we don't know their intent, and that is not what police do in general. We are trained to draw our fire arms when we believe our life and safety is in danger like clearing building for exanple or when we confirm an incident of imminent danger or when a subject has a presentation of deadly force such as a knife, or a pistol.

I would argue using an "assault rifle" (I use quotes because most of those rifles are Semi only. Cops typically don't issue out select fire weapons to regular patrol officers) is better during crowd control because you have higher control of where the bullet goes as opposed to the a shotgun loaded with buckshot.

Most police grenade launchers are 37mm. The only grenades that are made for those are illum and smoke/gas.....

MAJ (Join to see), lets be more particular about our language. An M16 or M4 is (or could be considered) an assault rifle. An AR-15 or the civilian variant is simply a rifle because it has no automatic fire capacity. The SWAT team has what look like grenade launchers, but they don't have HE grenades. I can't speak for all departments, but the department I am affiliated with only uses SWAT for high risk situations and not for directing traffic. All officers have riot gear and that gear looks intimidating too, but it is more like football pads as it is designed to protect from blunt impact, not ballistic impact.

Regardless, what you should find disturbing is that if the police have the military equipment but not the capability, what's to keep them from getting it? In very short order the police could be transformed from their present capabilities into a paramilitary force cracking down on protesters (for example). We must not forget that the police are paid by our taxes and they work for the general public under the authority of those we elect to represent us. WE are not their enemy. We do not need to Federalize the police and they do NOT need military capabilities to do their job. That's why we have a National Guard, commanded at the State level by each State's governor.

I caution that it does have an impact. I was visiting family in Slidell, LA, and found that they police had a ASV in their parking out. I was shocked as it was a legit military vehicle. I later found that it was donated by the company that makes them. The plant was in Slidell. I never knew.

Amen brother, it was once just an issue you would hear law enforcement jumping to an assumption of guilt with those with a history of crime. But I have heard law enforcement make comments about the general public as being guided. So a badge is about law enforcement, not command of the general population. I travel allot and meet law enforcement, most are extremely polite to me when they discover I am a vet. Some places the law enforcement have more of a us versus all of them disposition. It should never be as if the police see themselves apart, separate from the population as if they among a foreign people. My concern is some are forgetting they serve the people they protect.

The police do not exist to serve or protect. The police exist to enforce the law.
"Serve and Protect" is a slogan, like "Army of One". Really, there is only one person in the whole Army? NOT.
If you are operating under the assumption that police serve you, you are mistaken.

SPC Moore, This is not about the slogan but the spirit of taking a job whose primary purpose it to benefit others. Certainly some take positions of power and responsibility because they desire to be in charge or “the boss” but I do not think that this encapsulates why our most people chose to try and improve the country by working in Law Enforcement. I understand your point but the fact remains that enforcing the law and serving the people are not mutually exclusive acts. Law Enforcement is a service that Officers’ offers to their communities by enforcing the law. It is very similar to the oath all Service members make to serve the American People. Naturally we are oversimplifying the matter but I still believe that Law Enforcement primary function is identical to mine; to serve the community and country. In my search I have never seen a description of Police Functions which omits the word “service”. I and many others see it as one of the principal and primary functions of Law Enforcement Agencies. Police, Politicians and Military Service Members (and many others) are all different types of “Public Servants” with income derived from public coffers/taxes for the purpose of benefitting the Public Good and service of the country and community. Personally I feel power without a sense of stewardship and service is prone to failure and corruption. Service to others is the anchor that keeps the persons ego and interests in check and ensures that moral choices are made and justice is enjoyed by all.
This is a good reference regarding Police Functions:
“The American System of Criminal Justice, by George F. Cole and Christopher E. Smith, 2004, 10th edition, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning:

Order maintenance. This is the broad mandate to keep the peace or otherwise prevent behaviors which might disturb others. This can deal with things ranging from a barking dog to a fist-fight. By way of description, Cole and Smith note that police are usually called-on to "handle" these situations with discretion, rather than deal with them as strict violations of law, though of course their authority to deal with these situations are based in violations of law.

Law enforcement. Those powers are typically used only in cases where the law has been violated and a suspect must be identified and apprehended. Most obvious instances include robbery, murder, or burglary. This is the popular notion of the main police function, but the frequency of such activity is dependent on geography and season.

Service. Services may include rendering first aid, providing tourist information, guiding the disoriented, or acting as educators (on topics such as preventing drug use). Cole and Smith cited one study which showed 80% of all calls for police assistance did not involve crimes, but this may not be the case in all parts of the country. Because police agencies are traditionally available year-round, 24 hours a day, citizens call upon police departments not only in times of trouble, but also when just inconvenienced. As a result, police services may include roadside auto assistance, providing referrals to other agencies, finding lost pets or property, or checking locks on vacationers' homes.”