What are your thoughts on “Militarizing the Police?”

LTC Yinon Weiss — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:58:52 -0400

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 11:06 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:06:38 -0400

Great discussion topic Sir. Should get interesting. My vote goes to the the last option

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Aug 21 at 2014 11:14 AM

SFC Stephen P. — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:14:19 -0400

There are many provisions in our constitution and subsequent laws to protect the people from the Army.

Now we have forces in our communities that are armies in all but name.

The practice of circumventing the law bothers me.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Aug 21 at 2014 11:21 AM

CPO Jon Campbell — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:21:11 -0400

Most law enforcement agencies have had access to military grade equipment since the end of WWII. Typically law enforcement agencies see a bump in military equipment when more war surplus is available. What the police have now is actually a social media war in which opinions about incidents are formed with lightening speed on Twitter and other sites. This makes the investigative process more difficult, impartial jurors harder to find, and fair trials more difficult. The police are using outdated communications techniques and are unable to defuse situations because they lack the skills to counter negative social media attacks. These, in turn, become actual, physical attacks and escalate violence.

Response by SGT Thomas Sullivan made Aug 21 at 2014 11:31 AM

SGT Thomas Sullivan — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:31:46 -0400

I see no problems in equipping certain Federal Law enforcement agencies with better equipment and training, but having local law enforcement agencies with tanks is a little head scratching.

I can see big cities requiring riot squad crisis prevention gear/initiiatives involve national guard.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 21 at 2014 12:56 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:56:04 -0400

If the criminals have capabilities beyond our state and local police then how is LNO supposed to be maintained in a crisis situation prior to the NG being called out? Even having the NG called out is a "loaded" statement because what are the ROE for the particular situation? With that being said, ownership of said capabilities IMHO is only 10% of the law, being able to effectively, efficiently and precisely employ those capabilities is the other 90%. SWAT units were initially developed to give LE a small, precision paramilitary capability for a pinpoint crisis - hostage situation, building take over, stopping vehicles, etc. As NG, we used to do our annual crown control formation drills with batons and riot shields in the days prior to the LTL packages being available. How often do the police perform these types of exercises/drills. based on what I'm seeing in Ferguson, I'd err on the side of not much. When a melee ensues, as in Ferguson, what is LE's OPLAN to handle the crisis? As we've seen they need a better planning and deployment basis for this type of crisis. A complete, large paramilitary police force - LA SWAT is probably the closest thing, but no. State and local police assisted by military planners for both tactical and strategic crisis PLANNING AND OBSERVATION ONLY yes.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 1:06 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:06:13 -0400

I have been a law enforcement officer for about three years. You will find that law enforcement is overly saturated with prior service military. This can turn a police department into a para-military outfit that will not only alter the appearance of the law enforcement agency but the attitude of the officers. Below is an example of this. Point a weapon is something you do when you intend to do harm to them. This was common place in Iraq or Afghan. When you militarize the police they will develop a complex of the US v. Them. While in law enforcement I would see this often. It is a dangerous situation. Criminals are not the enemy. They are just criminals.

Officer suspended for pointing semi-automatic rifle at 'peaceful' protester

An officer who pointed a semi-automatic assault rifle at a Ferguson, Missouri, protester and threatened to kill him has been suspended.

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Aug 21 at 2014 1:34 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:34:58 -0400

This is a double edged knife..... the MISSION of LEO and Military are not the same...Training requirements are not the same, and how they are used should not be the same. With that being said, many criminals now have military grade (or nearly so) weapons and tactics. In this case, it would be prudent for local LEO have something that is nearly equil to match fire with fire. In most cases tho, the general street beat cop should not have a huge need for military grade hardware. Special teams such as SWAT have slightly different needs as they are activated for higher level crisis events. If the SHIT HITS THE FAN, such as in MO, the use of State activated military can be used, however, do not use them for Law Enforcement....they should truely be used as the "final hammer" to quell civil unrest/disobedience. With that being said, they should use as much restraint as possible as it is NOT combat...but need to accomplish the mission.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 2:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:17:14 -0400

So long as the Police remember that their Duty, their job is

"To Protect and Serve", the type of equipment they possess is not an issue.

The problem arises when they view the community that they are supposed to be part of as an enemy combatant and a threat. They definitely need to focus more training on serving, helping, assisting and less on directing, collecting revenue, etc.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 21 at 2014 2:30 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:30:31 -0400

One thing to consider is that your tools doen't necessarily dictate your tactics. Police may have "military" type equipment, but they dont' operate necessarily in the same way as the military. Be wary of making broad judgements based on superficial similarities. Consider this analogy: A musical instrument does not determine what style of music you play. A guitar can be used to play rock, jazz, country, classical, etc. It's still a guitar, but how it's used is determined by the person holding it. The same goes for "military" gear that police have access to.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Aug 21 at 2014 2:35 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:35:39 -0400

E - None of the Above.

The Police are not the military. They do NOT need to be driving MRAPs and running around wearing cammies or trying to be Black Ops commandos.

Am not against the police having military grade arms to match what the criminals have, nor am I against them wearing protective gear.

But they must remember that their function is domestic and that they are public servants tasked to maintain law and order and to keep the peace. WE THE PEOPLE pay their salaries with our tax dollars. The police should not prey on citizens setting up speed traps to collect money in order to pay their salaries. I'd rather they spent their efforts making a presence and keeping the peace, rather than bleeding the public to pay their salaries or trying to be SF Supercops. FWIW.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 2:38 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:38:24 -0400

Hard to say, two totally different "missions".

Army: "The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders."

Police: "The MISSION of the New York City Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in our City by working in partnership with the community and in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment."

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 4:27 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 16:27:04 -0400

They have no reason to "Militarize" if they do the job they were hired and trained for.

Response by MAJ Derrick J. made Aug 21 at 2014 6:08 PM

MAJ Derrick J. — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:08:29 -0400

The role of the police is vastly different.

Protect and Serve...

How can a militarized police serve and protect, if their training and tactics create a "we vs them" mentality both within and outside the police department?

This is a serious developmental and professional educational issue. I was trained as a police officer many years ago, and this lesson has not been lost - PROTECT AND SERVE, not FIGHT and DEFEND.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2014 6:59 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:59:52 -0400

See the weapons, vehicles, and other equipment police in your area have acquired from the military. Searchable by state and county.

http://bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=36701000b255adcfe6ca4b13a8a4

Military_equip_to_states Search and Report

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 21 at 2014 10:46 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:46:13 -0400

As the criminals become better armed, the police have to improve their capabilities. It's an arms race as old as time.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 22 at 2014 1:17 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 01:17:06 -0400

The local government should never have war powers against it's own people. The words of Thomas Jefferson comes to mind.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Aug 22 at 2014 9:25 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:25:01 -0400

I think what we are seeing here goes right in line with the normal course of history. Let's take a ride back to the early 1900s. Gangsters were driving around in cars they worked on to make them go faster and then after WWII started using weapons like the BAR and Tommy Guns while the police were still walking around with 6 shot pistols and maybe a shotgun.

Fast forward to the 2000s when now the weapons on the street that mirror what we all saw in places like Fallujah. Police cannot protect the average law abiding person with a 6 shot pistol anymore. So yeah I think they should upgrade their weapons. There are still laws and rules that protects the population. But at the same time, I'm sure if someone broke into your house with AK47s and wearing body armor you would be happy to see the police respond in the same if not better gear.

Response by MSG John Wirts made Aug 22 at 2014 6:25 PM

MSG John Wirts — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:25:08 -0400

The police are supposed to serve and protect, the courts are supposed to try determine guilt or innocence. The prison system should administer the sentence determined by the courts. IF OUR COURTS WOULD DO THEIR JOB, criminals would reform, move, or be incarcerated. The police would have little need for more then one swat team, and they would probably not be needed full time. I feel strongly that we are fighting two wars we need to quit fighting. In the 20's and 30's we were fighting the war on a drug(alcohol) gang wars were rampant citizens were dying in the streets. We repealed prohibition, the gangs disappeared and the smugglers disappeared, alcohol was controlled, legal, taxed, and cheap. No profit for the gangs. We have a "new war on drugs" enormous profits, encourage the cartels, and gangs to violence to expand their profitability. The U.S. confiscates and destroys what drugs they intercept. We need to legalize marijuana inspect and tax it. Control it like alcohol with severe penalties for using it and driving. Like tobacco and alcohol licence and control the sale of marijuana, with strict enforcement and enforced penalties for sales to minors. Many of the laws relating to alcohol and tobacco are not enforced, and the penalties are a mere slap on the wrist. To make marijuana unprofitable, search for and confiscate undeclared and untaxed marijuana shipments. turn them over to a licensed distributor, for a fair price. The distributor would check for quality, package it for sale with the tax paid and the stamp applied. This would generate revenue to pay for the drug searches, and lower the price to make it unprofitable for the cartels to smuggle it. Licence growers/distributors in the U.S. and have licence distributors in foreign countries to collect process and ship to the U.S. with a legal destination to legally process and distribute the product in the U.S.. This would eliminate the major need for the "militarized police".

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Aug 22 at 2014 8:45 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:45:02 -0400

Honestly, as much as I thank him for doing it, I see this as the other edge of the double edge sword of Secy Gates going around the standard procurement procedures. Do not get me wrong, this is not a knock on Bob Gates in any way. I think was an apolitical statesmen of the type we sorely need more of.

We needed MRAPs in a bad way to save service member lives.. Procurement was in the way.. He went around them.. move forward to today… we have all these MRAPs and stuff with no long term storage, maintenance, or disposal plan... why? Because we went around the procurement process... Ahh government is beautiful isn't it?

I've been harsh in my judgment of Police lately. At Walter Reed the other day I got in a discussion with another soldier who is a LEO in south Atlanta when he isn’t wearing Army Green. He brought up some very strong points that gave me pause to my perceptions of Law Enforcement.

1. The United States has roughly 780,000 sworn LEOs. This is more than the standing Army of some nations. The law of averages is going to start playing in with numbers this big. Like our nation’s Army, while it is trusted and has many honorable men and women serving, it has its aberrations. We’ve had our Dahmers, Mannings, and Hassans. You can’t have organizations with that many people without people who have no business being there getting through. The Army is a hell of a lot better funded.

2. Now you’re like, “errmahgherrd 780k!” Well, the US is populated country. Statistically that breaks down to 1 LEO per 245 citizens. Even that is an inflated statistic because the 780k includes reserve officers. The number of full time LEOs is closer to 138k. I’ve had a long day and don’t feel like doing the math to adjust the number. Even with the over inflated number the US is pretty far down the list. I’m going to go out on a limb an quote the wikipediaz as a source in saying that the following countries have a higher ratio of police (including but not limited to): Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, Canada, Japan, and India (and of course China & Iran). I was actually surprised by some of these countries when looking this up.

These are very valid points. When you consider the sheer number of police use of force actions taken every year and take all this into account, it really makes me want to take a harder look at everything before passing summary judgment. I am biased in the fact that police officers tend to be hostile by default. In my capacity as an infantry platoon medic serving in Baghdad during the roughest part of the Iraq War, we did not respond to Iraqis this way. We certainly didn’t hand out buttercups and twizzlers but we knew the difference between a soft knock and a hard knock search. He immediately said, “yep.. and after 15 months you went home and after 15 months that officer still has years to go till retirement.” That.. is a point well taken.

Either way, reform in some form needs to happen. Law enforcement as a whole has an image problem and it is their responsibility to work to fix it. They ignore it at their own peril. Remember that in England, regular officers are not permitted firearms. If there is a sufficient groundswell, that can happen here too and I think we all agree that would probably end up with entire departments tossing their badges in the streets and saying, “thanks but go **** yourself” because I know that is what I would do. I think large departments and professional police associations need to institute military style public affairs and actively counteract the negative messaging prevalent in society. The Ferguson incident is a perfect example of total public information incompetence. There is an excellent pool of service minded, competent, and experienced people constantly transitioning from the Armed Services Public Affairs/Mass Communication communities that could fill these roles.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 12 at 2014 3:31 PM

SGT Richard H. — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:31:51 -0400

They have had their militaristic branches.... things like SWAT, riot task forces, etc. for a long time. For the most part, I'm not seeing what you mean by militarized, other than that.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Sep 12 at 2014 5:14 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:14:13 -0400

Sir,

I think much of the problem is that they are not militarized enough. I think our Nation has suffered for the last couple of decades from a lack of those with military experience in the community. IF the Fergusson PD had work in a more military manner, with a buddy there to back him up, the officer that was assaulted might not have needed to use deadly force? Of course, the main stream media does not care about the truth and would try to make a story about whatever did happen, ignoring the fact that a felon attacked a law enforcement officer and making it all about the criminal...again. Of course, when an officer of the law does hesitate and loses their life because he waited a second too long…well that really isn’t national news, is it?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 12 at 2014 5:42 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 17:42:50 -0400

I don't think that they need to be more "militarized". What they need is:

1) A higher standard on recruitment
2) More extensive training
3) Consistent internal officer reviews by a third party
4) Transparency
and
5) Accountability

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Sep 12 at 2014 10:25 PM

Cpl Dennis F. — Fri, 12 Sep 2014 22:25:42 -0400

On one hand I think it is getting carried away. The small country town I now live in has TWO APCs...what the hell for, I don't know, bubba beatin' his wife...roll the tanks. On the other hand all of the sheriffs are kevlared up even in the heat, don't blame them as a Trooper was killed by a transient traffic stop. So defensive-yeah, be all you can be! Offensive -I can't see the need and the extra maintenance expense.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 3:09 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 03:09:13 -0400

Well, unless we want AD military or the National Guard patrolling our streets, then the police need to adapt to the threats that they can potentially face. With our Hemorrhaging southern border, those threats are only going to get worse.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Sep 13 at 2014 9:14 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 09:14:47 -0400

The real question is what relationship do we believe law enforcement should have with the population. The answer to THAT question drives organization and equipping, as well as methods of interacting.

My answer is that while police agencies need to be able to use graduated force, and rapidly when needed, they should primarily be a service and not a combat force. What's that mean? More Adam 12 and less Robocop. Remember, when you approach policing as "Us vs. Them", it is by default also "Them vs. Us."

Response by SSG Jacob Wiley made Sep 13 at 2014 12:34 PM

SSG Jacob Wiley — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 12:34:29 -0400

There have always been militarized parts of every police force, just as there are traffic divisions, patrol divisions, etc. We all know the more militaristic divisions under different names: SWAT, TAC, SRT, etc. They run the high risk warrants, stand offs, hostage situations, etc. The things that the average patrol officer in the squad car doesn't do.

I think the main two factors which make people wonder about how militarized law enforcement agencies are getting is this:

1) Media/internet/Facebook makes people more aware of them than before
2) The situations facing our law enforcement today

The world we live in today is by no means peaceful, we know this as well if not better than most. There are real dangers and threats here at home. We rely on law enforcement to handle these situations. In order to ensure THEIR own safety, they have the skills and tools to perform the task they are presented with.

From my personal stand point, due to my father having been in law enforcement over 35 years now, 17 of which on the Dallas Police SWAT team, these highly trained units are vital. They are not full of people who are monsters that want to drag everyone by their hair or infringe on your rights. At the end of the day, they're just like us: husbands, wives, mothers, fathers and so on. We as a society cannot entrust someone to do a job but deny them the tools to do it, or make them do it with their hands tied. That in itself is an injustice.

There will always be 'bad' people in honorable jobs. Like the military's problem children (DUI, drugs, domestic violence, etc), law enforcement agencies are no different. When these people are identified, like the military, they are reprimanded and often times at the very least lose their job.

Today more focus is given to the bad decisions or abuses of power/authority, than is given to the bravery and hard work these men and women dedicate their lives to. Just like how the news likes to report on airstrikes missing a mark and getting civilians...what the news doesn't mention are the Soldiers that protected a child in a TIC, the humanitarian aid that saved someone from starving, etc.

Bad news sells, happy endings don't.

Response by Capt Chris McVeigh made Sep 13 at 2014 5:07 PM

Capt Chris McVeigh — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 17:07:12 -0400

I think the quotes below were my favorite part of the Senate discussion. Police departments are accepting all the military equipment because it is free, whether they need it or not. Then once they have it they feel like they should be using it. The police have a completely different mission than the military and much of our equipment is non-compatible with a police mission where the police are supposed to be part of the community. US police mentality should be community member first, not fix bayonets and charge.

Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky was, for his part, particularly puzzled about why 12,000 bayonets have been made available to police departments, and asked Estevez for his thoughts on the matter.

“I cannot answer what use bayonets would be,” Estevez said.

“I can answer it for you,” Senator Paul said. “None.”

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 13 at 2014 9:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:25:20 -0400

SWAT teams are over used, MRAPs are expensive to maintain and not suitable for anything but protection from IEDs.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 14 at 2014 11:27 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:27:06 -0400

Much like the military is drifting by generation, values and socioeconomic class from the population it serves and comes from the police forces in the United States are also...more children of police become police officers and fewer from the general population, ethnic, socioeconomic and gender differences are also becoming wider. They generally value rule of law in a culture that has begun to devalue its actual practice. During the Vietnam war, social movements here at home drove a distrust into the general public and especially vulnerable populations for police members. Levels of corruption and failures are widely publicized which continues to reinforce this distrust. The motorization and mechanization of the police combined with budget and force cuts also removed the beat cop from communities so that communication and trusting relationships are not built. This distancing has created a distrust and even dislike of the general population within the police forces in many locations; especially those that have high rates of violence against police officers.

Militarizing the police is NEVER the right approach to ensuring law enforcement due the sociological and psychological signals it perpetuates.
Planning for the military to back up the police in large scale is also the wrong approach.
"Perception is reality" takes on a whole new meaning here. How do these two concepts combined not force the citizenry of the United States to see the police and military as adversaries rather than as protectors? How do they not help conspiracy theories to flourish that the government wants to "control" them much like the brownshirts of Nazi Germany?

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 2:10 AM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 02:10:58 -0400

In my opinion, the police around the country are becoming para-military. The use of military grade weapons(to include bayonets), military vehicles, body gear, tactics and training is all becoming far too militarized. Not only that, there is no accountability for the mostpart when a serious situation such as a shooting occurs involving a police officer. There needs to be a defensive action/escalation of force rule put in place before an officer even attempts to pull out his/her weapon and should only be done so for their safety.

Moving along, my cousin Sheriff Joel Kerns told me that he has a contract through the military to receive refurbished mraps for use as county vehicles. I asked him what he would use it for and he said to make it easier to go out on rural roads and get to calls. However, he has a buffalo mrap. Now why would he use all that diesel, manpower, gear and weaponry to respond to a call?

Moving further along, i do agree with having a semi automatic rifle of some sort just in case, or at least a shotgun. But it should only be used when necessary. Regular traffic stops and an m4? Not very logical to me. There is way to much unnecessary force being used against civilians by cops who are inadequately trained both in marksmanship and situational control.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2014 12:26 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 12:26:17 -0400

I think this is just a ridiculas media ploy. SWAT has used up armored vehicles for decades, I'd rather they get our unused MRAPs than the Afghan military or other nations. IMO SWAT isn't "overused" they go on high risk calls that beat cops aren't equipped for, maybe it's less that they are over used and more that the number of high risk calls has increased, let's not tell them how to do their job, and focus on ours.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Sep 16 at 2014 9:23 PM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Tue, 16 Sep 2014 21:23:55 -0400

The militarization of the Police, has been brought to us by the weaponry many criminals have access to, this started in the 80's when L.A. gangs and the Colombian Drug Cartels were popping each other off like it was the national past time. Many Police were in the line of fire, and were seriously outgunned. When street gangs had access to armor piercing rounds, there tends to be a huge problem. The problem has persisted, the Police Tactical units are trained in a Military fashion for just such happening, and then with the everything after 9/11, things have spiraled to where we're at now. This has been common practice for some time now, and the Media Circus that is Ferguson brought it further into the light. What many people are not doing is looking at this militarization from a historic perspective, what led to this? Ferguson was a media fiasco, many things were broadcast in National News, that was the furthest thing from the truth. The Media wants everyone to go along with their agenda, and not question them, and many sheep follow the news blindly, not seeing anything other than what the media shows. But, if you scratch the surface, and go beyond what the media divulges, you will find more truth, than what the media presents. The Media lies about everything, and the do it in the name of sales and marketing, drama sells and the media will lie to make that sale. Always fact check. There are many things the Mainstream Media left out of the Ferguson debacle. This was not racially motivated, this was not a matter of an innocent black youth was shot and killed while he was surrendering to the police, this was not the Community Rioting... So many things were stated by the media that was not true. Truth be told, The Community is 60% Black, and the city is more than willing to hire anyone of color, if they just applied. The shooting occurred as the suspect did a strong arm robbery, he was not giving up to the police, his hands were not up, and he did not say "don't shoot." He was stopped, he assaulted the officer repeatedly. His 22 year old friend, the "witness," lied about the circumstances and then recanted. The suspect was not shot in the back, autopsy shows all 6 shots were found in the front. The community called for piece. The rioting started the night it happened, a Quick Trip store was burned down, many local shops were looted and robbed. The St Louis County Police responded after two days of this, and brought out riot control. Out of 163 people arrested, only 7 were actually from Ferguson, the others were from surrounding communities, and they came out to destroy the neighborhood and steel what they could. The day Monday after the rioting started, Ferguson Citizens tried cleaning up what the looters and rioters destroyed, only to be called racist slurs. Ron Johnson, a local resident and Police Captain advised the media to stop stirring the pot, bear in mind, Captain Johnson, is a man of color, and grew up in the vicinity, knows the neighborhood and graduated from a local High School. The list goes on, about what the national media did not cover...

Response by CDR Kenneth Kaiser made Sep 18 at 2014 7:33 PM

CDR Kenneth Kaiser — Thu, 18 Sep 2014 19:33:41 -0400

I think it would be good to transfer certain military capabilities to the Police. Criminals are very well armed in many areas and there is no need for the Police to be out gunned. But is should go beyond just weaponry. We in the military have certain capabilities such as command and control systems and other capabilities which could be tailored to civilian law enforcement applications. (I am thinking of older systems so that we don't divulge sensitive technology ) I have seen several civilian applications that lag far behind what we had 40 years ago.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 3 at 2014 3:46 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 15:46:38 -0500

I know where the police can get A LOT of "observation" helicopters for $1 a pop.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2014 8:05 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:05:54 -0500

The militarization of the police is what has led police to be ever more confrontational and rely on their guns first.

We need a return to the "peace officer" concept. Instead of the entire police force having military-grade assault weapons and armored personnel carriers, we need a return to when most police lived and worked in the same community, and there is a small, specialized team (SWAT) to deal with things that are actually high-threat.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 4 at 2014 8:06 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:06:10 -0500

Some specific units (SWAT) need similar small arms and tactics to ours. No policeman needs an MRAP, MMG or other CSW. They need to more carefully consider when to kit up. Likely to be shot at with rifles? Carry one also, and wear a flak and ammo rig. Likely threat only pistols? Stick with your normal vest and your own pistol. Bricks and molotvs? Shields, helmets, sticks.

But the images we've seen out of Fergeson? Full kit and weapons up against the unarmed? Idiocy.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Dec 4 at 2014 8:38 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:38:40 -0500

The police need the proper tools to perform the mission they are called upon to do. Those tools include equipment and training.

The reason the police are "militarizing" is because the criminals (and the population as a whole) are militarizing. Nobody, except for the criminals, want the police to be out-gunned.

As criminal enterprises get more and more sophisticated, armed and organized, the police must equip itself and train to counter that threat. Although it may be troublesome for some to understand, that means that, to effectively counter the threat the police must become more like the military. That does not mean that they must enter every situation like a Ranger Seal Team on a mission. But it does mean that they need to have the tools and training available in the event they encounter a situation that needs it. They simply do not have the time to wait for help from someone else to counter the situation.

Is there potential for abuse? Of course. I, for one, think that would be the exception, not the rule.

Response by LTC Scott O'Neil made Dec 4 at 2014 9:06 AM

LTC Scott O'Neil — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:06:06 -0500

OK step back and look at what you are asking. First responders have had to deal with more militaristic situations: 9/11, Drug Cartels with military grade weapons and Gang Wars. If you ask me they have already made that move by buying military surplus like MRAPS and developing military like SWAT Units, Anti Terrorism Units and after this weeks events large contingents of Anti-Riot Squads. NO, they do not need to be militarized, peopl have to take into account that the Police, Firemen, and Emergency Responders put their lives on the line every day. Every day a policeman has to deal with someone out ther that out guns them has access to military equipment and wants to do them harm. Have you ever watched COPS, or read the paper where a routine traffic stop ends with a fatal shooting of a police officer. People have to do what they are told or they are going to get hurt. RESPECT for the law and the law enforcement officers will stop what happened in NYC and Fergason. When told to stop, get on the ground, do not resist, don't move, obey or pay the price. That police officer doesn't know if you don't have a gun, knife or something you intend to use to end his or her life.

It all begins with RESPECT and RESTRAINT, both by the police and the perpetraitor. When the people of The United States start to see what happens to law enforcement officers each and every day, then they may understand there overzelousness and lack of empathy for perpetrators. It all begins with self protection, self preservation, wanting to see their love ones. Police have been shot walking into the police station in PA, not even there they are safe.

Maybe what is needed are more cameras depolyed with cops on the beat, in their cars to support thier actions and catch the neglect.

Response by SPC Marte Peterson made Dec 4 at 2014 9:48 AM

SPC Marte Peterson — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:48:11 -0500

Police speciality units do train in a military form. Those who think police don't need military type weapons are clueless. Criminals are better armed and getting more aggressive every day. Law Enforcement needs to be steps ahead. Again, tactics are a priority. Be safe!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 4 at 2014 9:56 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:56:32 -0500

I don't think that militarizing the police holistically is a good approach. However, increasing the capabilities of specific units within a PD is probably the right thing to do. Too many criminals/criminal organization have similar equipment/capabilities. Not giving the Police that puts them at a marked disadvantage before they can even hit the streets.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Dec 4 at 2014 11:00 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:00:07 -0500

The Police should police. I think the last few weeks have shown they have their hands full policing, they do not need to be deploying on military operations.

Response by SGT William Howell made Dec 4 at 2014 2:18 PM

SGT William Howell — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:18:54 -0500

As I have worked as an MP and a civilian police officer. As an American I never want the police to become militarized. You think these protesters are not happy now! This was the purpose of the Posse Comitatus Act. We did not want the military policing the civilian population.

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Dec 4 at 2014 4:13 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:13:53 -0500

I do not think law enforcement should have the same capabilities as the military. I think there is a need for certain types of military equipment. The National Guard should be called in to assist law enforcement if they are not able to restore order.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 4 at 2014 4:15 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:15:48 -0500

Arming and equipping the police as a paramilitary force makes no more sense than arming and equipping the military as police officers. Their missions are entirely different. Police enforce the laws to help maintain a civil society and investigate crimes. The military destroys an enemy's capacity to make war. One helps maintain a society while the other must necessarily tear it apart. That sounds harsh, but those who study war know that "innocent civilians" are as much strategic assets as are military forces.

Training and equipping the police as paramilitary forces has exacerbated community problems, especially those related to race relations. Police standing around in armor and carrying automatic weapons are not as approachable as beat cops once were. Police lines dressed in riot gear forming at every hint of a problem tend to inflame passions rather than defuse them.

Let me tell you a story...

When I lived in Honolulu, the police force there accumulated a sad record of shooting deaths and critical injuries while pursuing and apprehending suspected perpetrators. The city responded by investing in additional training for the officers in nonlethal combat and psychological methods of disarming perps and defusing tense situations. The proof of their success came in one incident wherein an officer talked down and arrested two bank robbers who had wounded the officer's partner during the initial stages of the confrontation.

We are now moving into a new era with new threats, terrorist threats, and the federal government, beginning with George Bush, has taken the approach of telling citizens to hunker down and let the professionals defend them. The problem is that they have begun to use this approach as an excuse to eat away at our liberties. The truth is that our fearless defenders can't be everywhere at once. I believe that they should have taken advantage of the fact that many Americans are still fiercely independent and proud of their heritage of self reliance. They should have reconstituted Civil Defense to train and organize communities to help with damage control, search and rescue, fire fighting, emergency medical care, etc. Individual communities should have been encouraged to formalize militias using veterans to provide training and leadership.

Sadly, our fearless leaders in Washington and our state houses are more inclined to throw money at problems than solve them.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 4 at 2014 4:55 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 16:55:57 -0500

Are we talking like SWAT for all cops? If I was to see these guys dressed like this on the streets 24/7 it would be unnerving. Should police have the tools to take on crazies with automatic weapons? Absolutely! Police are not the enemy. Looters and rioters are criminals, not political activists. When someone is flipping over my squad car, I hope they expect a beanbag to the chest. If that angers them enough to attack me and put the lives of my teammates in jeopardy, they better hope that I have a good supply of non-lethal rounds. These poor cops. People hold up a video camera and it is almost like hitting the police with red kryptonite. Protect the public, protect the property, enforce the law......and expect to be crucified in the public when it is caught on tape. Where is Robocop when you need him. "I'd buy that for a dollar."

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 4 at 2014 5:13 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:13:36 -0500

It is a lot easier for me to identify with the struggles of law enforcement and the safety of our Nation than the civil rights of people throwing molotov cocktails and people running out of stores with property that is not their own. Criminals and activists will demand that police have video cameras implanted up their butt while maintaining their own freedoms shall never be infringed. I have no problems with cameras, scanners, drug sniffing pooches, and I would even put a visible ID card on my chest if asked. However, that is the mentality of most people who put the service of others ahead of their personal freedoms. Military, police, first responders, and the likes give and give and yet they are the most scrutinized and underpaid. Very frustrating.

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Dec 4 at 2014 5:49 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:49:13 -0500

Its is funny how quickly people forget history. Who remembers the LA shoot out? The officers were ill equipped and out gunned. They had to go to go to the local gun store and get high caliber rifles. They are receiving "TOOLS" to be used in times that are needed. As long as it is not abused i am ok with it. How bout when officers where not issued vest if they wanted them they had to buy them.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Dec 5 at 2014 12:57 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 00:57:12 -0500

I am not a "Die Hard" conspiracy theorist, but I always keep this movie in mind when I hear about rioting and calling for a militarized police presence. It makes you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCKe_EpJJk

Denzel Washington - Torture Scene Speech - The Siege 19982.flv

This moment summarises the war on terrorism!!

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Dec 5 at 2014 3:59 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 03:59:08 -0500

Basically this sums up everything I have to say, very simply and very succinctly.

http://imgur.com/gallery/fpYzl

U.S. imgurians, lets talk about this.

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Dec 5 at 2014 7:04 AM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:04:35 -0500

LTC Yinon Weiss Sir, I am certain this opinion may not be popular, but as a career law enforcement officer in and out of the military, there is a place for military style tactics. The rests and resides with Crisis Response Teams, Special Weapons and Tactics Teams, Hostage Rescue Teams, etc. For the average patrol officer a professional appearance in a uniform without bloused trousers is not only a more clean appearance, but also one which can diffuse a situation.

The first step in use of force is officer presence and I am one of the first to say that a military or tactical look can actually increase anxiety in persons and may result in a poor response. Contrary to that, is the officer who has a professional appearance in a uniform which does not appear tactical or military in nature.

Are special vehicles such as MRAPs or other armored vehicles needed by police? Again, yes for tactical and special units, but not for patrol. Having the ability to remove the door to a residence without exiting a vehicle is a huge benefit and saves lives, not only law enforcement but the persons being assisted. Being able to get close to an armed individual without placing officers in danger is also a benefit as you can utilize this equipment as a crisis negotiation platform.

Further, may criminal elements, whether street gangs, drug organizations, organized crime, and even individuals, have assault weapons and as a law enforcement officer you must plan for every contingency. Tactical officers, most often, are only utilized in high risk situations. Consequently, having the support of military style weapons, vehicles, body armor, and equipment is a necessary evil in the 21st century. Even the British Metropolitan Police, which have been unarmed for their entire history, have now armed many police officers and have added tactical response to their repertoire.

Response by SPC David S. made Dec 5 at 2014 10:58 AM

SPC David S. — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:58:32 -0500

The police are not disciplined like the military. So until they are, they don't need to use the same weapons as we do. Now, if they go through say Basic like we did, they can use military grade weapons. That's my thought on it.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 3:58 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 03:58:11 -0500

Sir, all of those answers fit for me...but emphatically, if criminals can have better weapons, and not afraid to carry and use them. Our Police should do the same. I sense a growing disent in our population, I can't really say it is a economic, social, or loss of freedom that is feeding this, but whatever it is, DHS, and Homeland Security is scared and preparing for the worse. I keep prepping, preparing, and storing supplies, I just hope I can bug-out fast enough. I do not want to be in the middle when the THSTF. There is a scene in the movie, 'HEAT', where the criminals (bank robbers) are using an Aussie peeling technique (falling back) and laying down suppressive fire while retreating, this is only a move I said to myself, but even in tall tales, there is some truth, and if I was an officer, I would be wishing I had CAS, Indirect fire, and Mortars. I do thin having a lot of prior military in the police force can be a good thing, and is probably playing a role kin why there is a 'fascination' if you want to call it that with military weapons. Once you see the big bad world, you don't want to go back to the sandbox.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 6 at 2014 10:32 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 22:32:48 -0500

Not all law enforcement is militarizing. SWAT and HRT folks need the armament to go toe to toe during those high risk warrants or hostage situations.

TCOs and the Cartels on the border will eat your lunch if you go out there with a six shooter and no body armor.

Response by SPC John Decker made Dec 7 at 2014 12:36 PM

SPC John Decker — Sun, 07 Dec 2014 12:36:49 -0500

All of the above options are viable. What really needs to be done, in my opinion, is to fix the education system in this country. We need ALL law enforcement agencies, local, state and federal to work together. They need to share intel. That is a possible long term solution. The problem will continue to exist between the way the system works now and if we implement these changes right now. Handling the situation in the interim is more complicated.

Response by PO2 Christopher A. made Dec 8 at 2014 6:04 PM

PO2 Christopher A. — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:04:49 -0500

When I was a cop all but a few on the force were prior military. Where do you think cops come from? Here are the facts about militarization. My department got to the point where we needed our own tactical team. We had no money. We went to DRMO and got a old CUTV and armored car, uniforms boots, and kevlar helmets. All serviceable stuff that was going to be thrown away by the military if somebody didn't use it. What's better the price was right. $0.00. We also ended up with some older generation m-16s but I forgot how we got them. The money we saved went towards training. We weren't the Navy Seals (didn't have to be they had a training center 5 miles away) but we were good enough to hold our own. And if things got more serious we could contain a scene until the better trained and equipped state police got there which usually took about three hours.

Response by CPL Rick Stasny made Dec 8 at 2014 8:10 PM

CPL Rick Stasny — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 20:10:56 -0500

I think that the opportunity for various departments to obtain military surplus items is a good thing, and here is why. A nut job in our area, wounded an officer attempting a traffic stop. He then traveled to the next county further arming himself. As officers from several departments arrived to execute a warrant, two more officers were wounded as they approached the house. These two were able to take cover behind their cruisers. The state prison in that county activated their CERT team and arrived on the scene with a lightly armored tracked vehicle and were able to extract the wounded officers without loss of life or additional injuries. Against a barricaded gunman older military hardware is tough to beat. I'm glad there are programs available that enable departments to face a threat with equipment that can get the job done safely.

Response by SGT Mark Sullivan made Dec 16 at 2014 8:57 AM

SGT Mark Sullivan — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:57:38 -0500

Unfortunately, we need to understand why the Police need the equipment they have, bottom line, they deserve the same right to come home safe at the end of the day as any other job

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Dec 16 at 2014 9:21 AM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:21:08 -0500

I have several friends in law enforcement, and have had many conversations about this.
Military gear does not make the police like the military.
Now I do have to say that some federal and local angencies have been seen as using over the top tactics for what seems routine items.
If law enforcement agencies would relearn the art using the right amount of force for the situation then I do believe things would improve.

Response by SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. made Jan 16 at 2015 10:29 PM

SFC Dan Sorrow, M.S. — Fri, 16 Jan 2015 22:29:51 -0500

For me, it depends on their mission, location, and the crime base they're providing a police action for. Most likely, a small town police force will not require the same TO&E as a police force in a larger metropolitan city. Even then, the typical patrol officer shouldn't need the full gambit of weapons and equipment as the better trained and equipped special teams. It's not enough to simply equip the force with weapons. Proper training and accountability are essential.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 10:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 22:48:28 -0400

Modernization of both weaponry and equipment is responsible for the training/equipping of "militaristic" equipment and the necessity of such. The threat police face is often not unlike the insurgency we face overseas, in addition to the fact that overseas insurgency is not exclusively overseas. As weapons and ammo became more sophisticated, so did armor and tactics to defeat the threat. "Cop Killers" and armor piercing ammo hit the streets, so the police responded in kind. The war on drugs and open borders created an unlimited supply and demand for weaponry and insurgent style gang warfare that populates the streets of most modestly sized metropolitan areas. We rely most simply on minimally trained police forces to combat this problem that continues to grow more dangerous annually despite the outfitting of military equipment.

The bottom line though, is that they use it because it works. On their worst day, a policeman will engage in a fight for his/her life on behalf of a typically disinterested citizenry. To do this, I want them equipped at a minimum with the same equipment I have to do the same. I wouldn't go into a firefight without the best equipment I could get a hold of, and wouldn't expect anyone else to either, no matter how scary the ignorant believe it to be.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 11:09 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:09:49 -0400

SPC Carl K.. The New American Civilian Police look rather too much like the Soviet Spetsnaz for me. Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by COL Charles Williams made Apr 27 at 2015 12:43 AM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:43:49 -0400

Police are never liked or needed... until you need them, then they can't get there fast enough.

To be a civilized country you need the Rule of Law (ROL), which means you need police, courts, and prisons.

So, we need police, and they need to be armed to deal with the threats they now face decisively. Things have changed and wooden "night sticks" and pistols, are not really the best solution for bad guys with a wide variety of weapons.

The idea is to have a clear advantage over the enemy in terms of manpower and weaponry.

Remember, there are actual bad guys out there, hence the need for a viable ROL.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 27 at 2015 12:51 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:51:35 -0400

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Apr 27 at 2015 1:03 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 01:03:42 -0400

The Militarization of police forces in our various levels of government is clearly out of control. First of all, read the Constitution, and then point out the lines in our Constitution that allows for the dozens of Federal law enforcement agencies.

After one comes up empty on that, one has to ask why it is necessary for Federal, State, and Local police agencies to be breaking down doors for a "war on drugs", that has proved to be totally ineffectual. Anyone that wants drugs can get drugs, whether or not they are illegal. Foreign, or Domestic producers are able to distribute said drugs, whether legal or not. Additionally, it is rarely the kingpins, or big distributors who end up in jail following these raids. Typically it is the low dealers who end up getting arrested, while the higher-ups are able to afford better attorneys to secure their release.

The Constitution doesn't allow for Federal police forces with the possible exception of a border patrol, or a Treasury police, (as the Federal government is Constitutionally tasked both with border security, AND with prosecuting Counterfeiters. Beyond that our State, and Local police forces should be focused on tracking perpetrators of crimes of violence, and enforcing civil law.

As Madison told us... “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Response by PO3 Jonathan Cooper made Apr 27 at 2015 1:31 AM

PO3 Jonathan Cooper — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 01:31:00 -0400

Look, this isn't "perceived". The issue really lies on what training the police get with regard to military level weaponery and equipment.
There will always be the occasional issue with escalation by the criminals/law breakers (I'm specifically thinking of an incident in LA involving assault rifles and body armor by robbers), but that's far and few between. The reason why any special police unit screens their personnel is to make sure they get the best and brightest. Most cops do not get the best training for even riot control situations.
What really need to happen is either better deadly force training for police. Or better FUBAR training for worst case senarios.

Response by SGT Dave Matteson made Apr 27 at 2015 1:35 AM

SGT Dave Matteson — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 01:35:18 -0400

It changed due to the times. The snub nosed 38 or an old army 45 were guns of choice for crooks or the odd knife. Also many bad guys unles mentally deranged didn't murder everyone in the area. Now police have to deal with AK47s and guys looking for a thill. They up armored to stay alive. If you look at Cops killed in the line of duty in 1964 and now you can see the difference.

Response by SSgt Randy Saulsberry made Apr 27 at 2015 1:38 AM

SSgt Randy Saulsberry — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 01:38:04 -0400

The militarization of the police is a huge problem. The police have a potentially dangerous job but people need to quit overstating how dangerous that job is. It's funny how with the increase in the militarization of police force there has been an increase in deaths of civilians at the hands of the police. I mean, when you get a new toy you want to play with it. We have police forces driving around in full body armor and with armored personnel carriers and mine resistant vehicles. these are the tools of the miltary in war zones. No cop is in a war zone, so why are they using the same gear we use to fight AL quaeda and isis? To fight terrorism here in america? 911 has been the justification for local police receiving this gear. And how many terror attacks have we had in the states in the past 14yrs, just 1. So yeah let's keep militarizing the police because that makes a lot of sense.

Response by SSgt Randy Saulsberry made Apr 27 at 2015 1:43 AM

SSgt Randy Saulsberry — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 01:43:15 -0400

Another good fact about our police forces and their new gear. there have been more americans killed by the police since 911 than at the hands of terrorists. so we are more likely to be killed by the police than the terrorists, doesnt that just make you proud to be an American.

Response by SPC Carl K. made Apr 27 at 2015 6:04 AM

SPC Carl K. — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 06:04:48 -0400

THIS is necessary to do their job?

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made Apr 27 at 2015 7:06 AM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 07:06:39 -0400

When 'old school' shifted to 'old fool'

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 9:25 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:25:40 -0400

I'd say leave the heavy stuff to SWAT teams (i.e. armor plates vs Kevlar vest, MRAP-type vehicle vs vans, etc). That's what SWAT teams are for.

From the ride-alongs I did back in college, your typical patrolman still is dressed and equipped like you'd expect: badge, utility belt, sidearm, and cuffs. But at San Jose PD at least (I went to SJSU), there had been an increase over the time I was there in the amount of officers that would dress in navy blue BDUs, blouse their boots, and generally look "tacti-cool". I really don't understand the point or function of dressing that way, as normal police uniforms are already designed to be sufficiently flexible and such in the right places to facilitate fence-hopping and other vigorous activities. I can see how it can lead to a sense of being a warrior in the mind of the cop dressed like that, which could become very ingrained over the long term. I don't want cops to think and act like warriors, I want them to think and act like cops. Warriors tend to escalate situations, cops need to be specialists at defusing them peacefully. Does dressing like a soldier make you think you're one? Not necessarily, but it sure doesn't help.

I don't see any of this changing unless the gov't finally realizes that the drug war is a) nanny-state interventionism that violates the innate right to do with your body as you choose, b) a complete and total failure, c) the reason violent drug cartels and so much other crime even exists.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 9:54 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:54:43 -0400

I'd say when people started doing this.
All lives matter, not just black lives.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Apr 27 at 2015 2:05 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:05:35 -0400

The shift started in 1997 with the North Hollywood Shootout. 19 police wounded by two heavily armed bank robbers. Police across the country learned that 9mm pistols don't hold a candle to assault rifles and body armor. Its only gotten worse as certain types of weapons have become more and more common in the civilian population.

The other issue though is a militarization in police mentality. They focus on force protection and reducing risk, which fosters an Us or Them mode of operation where people die unnecessarily. No-knock warrants for minor infractions, SWAT Team misdemeanor warrant execution, some fairly loose lethal force policies and a public that excuses it for any perceived danger whatsoever.

Interestingly, I think the number one fix for this? Bring back beat cops. I don't have data on it, but it seems to me that many of these issues happen when the community doesn't know the police and the police don't know the community. Having guys actually out walking the streets instead of just driving through brings back that connection where police can actually think through a problem instead of dealing with a completely unknown threat.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 12 at 2015 1:56 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:56:25 -0400

I am just confused with all the flash mobs of hatred in our country. We have worked on integration for decades, now it is more segregation and intolerance.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2015 6:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 18:49:29 -0500

I am kind of split on this. Police need this kind of equipment to deal with thing like that. However that equipment keeps them away from the people that they are protecting. I think that states and local police need to take some time and find the right balance. Like this may be used for special unites and not by the average officer. But there is a need for it in some places. I dont think that there is one answer for everywhere. like LAPD will be different then a small county sheriff.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 13 at 2015 7:21 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:21:14 -0500

You just don't know what the threat will be.

Response by Sgt Mike Williams made Dec 13 at 2015 7:54 PM

Sgt Mike Williams — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 19:54:30 -0500

SSG Matthew Howell - I see your points. I do think that the Governors should be leaders on this issue and train their National Guards in Expeditionary Force / QRF tactics for terror and mass casualty situations. Howevwr, until these Governors step up, I think (sadly) we will continue to see and need a more militarized Police Forces in our Municipalities.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 13 at 2015 8:35 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:35:26 -0500

I'm still generally opposed. Especially to the armored vehicles. Up-armors were one of our biggest challenges to use correctly in country, let alone here domestically (it is far more effective for security and maintaining relationships to patrol dismounted etc..)

Active shooters can be effectively addressed by good marksmen with AR's, no need for M4s with all the gucci trash and plate carriers, cammies, kevlars, grenades and so on. Do we need SWAT? Probably, does every patrolman need the SWAT? No, no they do not.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 13 at 2015 9:07 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 21:07:18 -0500

Like others, I'm kind of torn. On one hand, police need to be able to protect themselves. But on the other hand, them using military equipment could be one step closer to the declaration of Martial Law.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2015 12:45 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 12:45:06 -0500

I think that it is an unfortunate necessity for the police to have access to armored vehicles and military equipment, and San Bernardino illustrates why.
I feel uncomfortable with the idea in principle, but I understand why many communities and departments feel they need this equipment to deal with possible threats.

Response by SrA Matthew Knight made Dec 14 at 2015 1:35 PM

SrA Matthew Knight — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:35:58 -0500

It's not militarization just because they are using surplus gear and equipment. I'm so sick of people trying to say that law enforcement is dressing up and getting ready to take over the country from the people. Cops are humans and American citizens like everyone else. Anyone who thinks that they are going to band together and enforce a police state on America, on their own neighbors, family and friends is a fool.

Law enforcement on a day to day basis put a target on themselves in the form of a badge for the sake of working for the people of their community. Given that fact and the fact that many criminals would rather risk a shoot out with the cops than go back to jail, I don't exactly understand why it's even so much as a question as to whether or not police need those protections.

The San Bernardino shooting was a prime example of why police need access to that equipment. Look at the picture attached to that article, the police blocked the shooters in with two well armored vehicles and appear to be wearing an ample amount of body armor as well. Now tell me, how many officers did you hear about hospitalized or killed while involved in the shootout with those two? Got your answer? Good, now I want you to take the same situation but instead of the police rolling in like they did I want you to imagine the cops blocking these two psychopaths in with a couple of Ford Crown Vics with at most a small ballistic panel in the door and while wearing nothing more than a small vest and wielding their side arms, maybe their shot guns. I'm pretty sure although the police would have still came out on top there would have been significant injuries if not deaths in their ranks.

The police need those vehicles and they need the firearms, and the body armor, and everything else they have been getting. The criminals keep evolving and coming up with new ways to kill those who stand in their way, namely the police. As criminals evolve their tactics, so too should the police to be able to stop those threats before more innocent lives are damaged and destroyed.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2015 3:40 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:40:51 -0500

I completely agree that nowadays they need to be ready to face new threats, however departments need to make sure that those officers are trained and prepared to deal with those new toys.
This is where contractors come handy.

Sadly, departments don't necessarily have endless funds for training, especially for expensive private training companies.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 16 at 2015 5:02 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:02:02 -0500

From Batman Begins (2005)
Batman: We will. We can bring Gotham back.
Gordon: And what about escalation?
Batman: Escalation?
Gordon: We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics. We start wearing Kevlar … they buy armor-piercing rounds.
Batman: And?
Gordon: And you're wearing a mask ... and jumping off rooftops. Now, take this new guy. Armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for the theatrical. Like you. Leaves a calling card. [hands Batman a clear plastic evidence bag containing a playing card; Batman turns it over to reveal that it is a Joker card]
Batman: I'll look into it. [walks to edge of roof]

Does no one see the parallels to militarization? Hell, outright explicit statement that militarizing the police enhances the issue. I'm not saying that Batman got it correct, but no one called BS on this key plot-point for the superhero genre. Sometimes fiction mirrors reality.