Do you believe Obama should be able to put restrictions on military gear for police officers?

2015-05-19T09:40:36-04:00

Should the president even be involved in this or is this State and City matters? What are your thoughts?

Obama bans some military equipment sales to police

The use of military gear by local police can serve to "alienate and intimidate" citizens, Obama says.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2015 9:45 AM

2015-05-19T09:45:33-04:00

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2015 10:01 AM

2015-05-19T10:01:32-04:00

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction. This will be lauded until something goes down where the public outcry will be (much like it was in LA which lead to a big push to get police this type of equipment) "why didn't our officers have the equipment they needed to deal w/ this threat?!"

What most people don't understand is that this equipment typically sits in the department until it is needed to be used. Our patrol rifles were kept in the truck of our squad cars. They were not easily accessible & were in rifle bags. Any SWAT-type equipment was locked up at the department.

Response by SGT David T. made May 19 at 2015 10:13 AM

2015-05-19T10:13:46-04:00

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2015 10:14 AM

2015-05-19T10:14:06-04:00

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.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made May 19 at 2015 10:35 AM

2015-05-19T10:35:59-04:00

No! There is no Constitutional basis that allows the Federal government to mandate what equipment, tactics or procedures that local or State law enforcement agencies employ. For that matter there is no Constitutional basis for almost ALL Federal law enforcement actions.

Response by SFC Tyrone Almendarez made May 19 at 2015 12:01 PM

2015-05-19T12:01:12-04:00

I certainly don't want a militarized police force. That's how your 1st Ammendment rights start to get taken away. Where are all my freedom fighters defending the president on stopping the police from having military gear?

Response by MAJ Ray McCulloch made May 19 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-05-19T12:39:47-04:00

Just my opinion here, but I bet the citizens of Waco, TX, are pretty happy their police officers had assault style weapons on Sunday. So I guess I fall on the State/Local side of the argument.

Response by SFC Justin Rooks made May 19 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-05-19T12:48:30-04:00

I think that there should be discussions on what to provide and what not to. There have been many incidents cited on both sides of the fence warranting the need for this equipment and where it was totally unnecessary. At the end of the day, if and when this equipment is provided, there has to be an understanding that this does not give the authorities free reign to lose their minds and abuse it. You can't say that giving them this gear is militarizating them because a lot of policemen are former military. Something has to be done to enforce checks and balances on when this equipment is deployed against the public. That's how you regain the public trust.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made May 19 at 2015 1:12 PM

2015-05-19T13:12:07-04:00

I think he can only control what the federal government donates, gives, or sells to the states. The states can get it from other non federal agencies or companies. I am tired of the government telling the states what or how to run things. They need to keep out of state business.

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made May 19 at 2015 1:20 PM

2015-05-19T13:20:47-04:00

That's not going to stop gang bangers from getting ak47 or mac 10's or some loser emo kid from shooting up a school because he wanted to be YouTube famous

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made May 19 at 2015 2:48 PM

2015-05-19T14:48:17-04:00

Obama has no authority to restrict legitimate procurement of anything by law enforcement agencies he has no control over. He can, however, dictate what US government equipment can be provided.

If you read the Executive Order, it is very clear that his action is a knee-jerk to appease "civil rights advocates", which he mentions numerous times in the order.

My opinion -- The police would not need the "military equipment" if the criminals did not have it. However, I am all for the police being better equipped and trained than the bad guys. Is there a possibility for abuse? Of course; but that does not negate the requirement that our police agencies have the tools to combat the criminal element. The press will always highlight the few instances of abuse, while downplaying or ignoring the many more instances where the equipment prevented escalation of criminal activity.

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made May 20 at 2015 1:08 PM

2015-05-20T13:08:53-04:00

I do not believe that law enforcement should have military grade hardware. They and the military has two separate missions, one to enforce the law of the land, the other is to subdue the military force of the land.
I have ask the mayor of my town, why does the police force with a manpower of 12 need 10 M-4s and 10 7.62 caliber rifles plus a radar "proof" camouflage net? I'm still waiting for an answer