Posted on May 19, 2015
1SG First Sergeant
4.19K
18
35
0
0
0
Should the president even be involved in this or is this State and City matters? What are your thoughts?
Edited 9 y ago
Avatar feed
Responses: 12
SFC Operations Sergeant
6
6
0
He was likely referring to military gear sold from the gov to state and local agencies. Wouldn't have the authority to dictate what can and can't be procured in the free market.
(6)
Comment
(0)
SFC Operations Sergeant
SFC (Join to see)
9 y
SGT Jeremiah B. Ummm. I disagree with your last statement, "The militarization of police forces is a real problem." Gear isn't what makes a military a military. In structure, organization, customs and courtesy, Police Departments have always been paramilitary and have a hierarchy similar in fashion. I understand what the President meant, what you said completely mirrored my original post. The equipment the Police use is for defense and public safety, but more importantly is primarily for the prevention of loss of life which is something the anti-police conspiracy theorists dont take into account because they have never done the job and have no idea what they are talking about. Specifically regarding your post? Bayonets are knives and are 1. acceptable, 2. Not used by any Police department I am aware of. Just silly. Grenade launchers can be purchased by civilians as well, and since they are used to deliver non-lethal preventative measures by Police are more than acceptable. No Police Departments I am aware of utilize .50 cal machine guns either, but since civilians who are licensed can buy them and many criminals procure full-auto rifles and belt-fed machine guns I would say the Police having one is less worrisom. If you can find one though I would like to know because the residual risk is far too great for a Police Department to ever employ it. And finally, no Police Department has tanks either. Please provide an example of one that has a functional tank for use of force. What Police Departments do have is modern equipment that keeps them safe against a highly equipped, dangerous and ever growing criminality. Body armor, crowd dispersion tools and protective vehicles are not absurd given what we ask Police to face every day. What it sounds like you should be worried about is the militarization of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, who are far more likely to trample all over your individual rights one day at the barrel of a gun. And they do have all the scary items you are talking about. Allowing our Law Enforcement (especially Sheriff Departments sworn to the Constitution) to equip themselves according to their criminal opposition is just as necessary as civilians being armed sufficiently to defend themselves from tyrranical government.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SFC Operations Sergeant
SFC (Join to see)
9 y
LTC Paul Labrador Yes ^^^ exactly. Right on point, Sir. I love when people see the M113 with a crowd control mechanism and start crying, "Tank!" Not a tank. It is a tracked vehicle not unlike a bulldozer with protective walls. They made excellent CASEVAC vehicles in Iraq, and if they are good enough to protect casualties from assault over there I have no problem with them protecting Police from bullets, molotov coctails, bottles and rocks when they HAVE to respond to a riot or civil unrest. I wouldn't go into a gun fight without all the protection available to me, and I dont expect a Policeman to either. Every 80 hours a Police Officer is killed in our Country, making the job more dangerous than mine as an Infantryman.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Jeremiah B.
9 y
Look at my MOS - I don't confuse the two.

LTC Paul Labrador I wasn't saying they had those things. I was saying they were what was being banned from the supply chain. Yes, M113's are considered "armored" (oh how I laugh), but the ban is more blanket than that. God only knows if M-60s were available or have been purchased (but thankfully unused).

SFC (Join to see) Holy wall of text, batman! I'm not sure we entirely disagree. I do disagree that equipment doesn't contribute. Our tools influence how we approach problems and when military equipment is available, it very well can contribute to an increasingly militaristic response. As the president noted, the problem isn't the equipment, it's the environment it creates when present.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SGT Jeremiah B.
9 y
Overall, the point of this was to stop the Federal government from contributing to an increasing trend. It was also only part of the announcement.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Contracting Officer
3
3
0
No and the title of the cite is completely wrong, a president does not have the legal authority to determine what a state uses in it's police force. What President Obama is actually doing is cancelling programs that use federal dollars to pay for military style equipment a significant difference.
(3)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT David T.
2
2
0
I think the potential for abuse outweighs any potential benefits. In militarizing the police force we set a dangerous precedent that can lead to abuses of power. I am all for law enforcement having the gear they need to perform their jobs, however this does not include MRAPS. As the President he has the right to dictate who the DOD provides military equipment to. I think police running around with military grade equipment sends a very dangerous message. I am not citing any specific examples of abuse, only that the potential exists.
(2)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Byron Oyler
MAJ Byron Oyler
8 y
Who is going to respond when someone shoots up a school or a city with heavy firepower? You want to pay the national guard to have a QRF in every major city?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close