Posted on Aug 21, 2014
What are your thoughts on “Militarizing the Police?”
20.3K
404
208
12
12
0
Responses: 83
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Mike Williams
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Mike Williams
PO1 John Miller
I am in no way torn. I am completely against the militarization of our Police Depts. HOWEVER, until our State Governments will do what is necessary through peoper training and utilization of State Malitias and National Guard, I am happy that local law enforcement is stepping up to meet the threats.
I am in no way torn. I am completely against the militarization of our Police Depts. HOWEVER, until our State Governments will do what is necessary through peoper training and utilization of State Malitias and National Guard, I am happy that local law enforcement is stepping up to meet the threats.
(2)
(0)
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.
(3)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
Additionally, the military should not become the police either, each have their purpose, and should work to enhance each other only when the need arises.
(3)
(0)
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.
But the images we've seen out of Fergeson? Full kit and weapons up against the unarmed? Idiocy.
(3)
(0)
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.”
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.”
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
To the original thought, the bayonets are available, but were they accepted? I don't see any in my issued kit.
(1)
(0)
CMC Robert Young
Have a really old one off the the M1 my dad (God rest him) carried two generations ago. It works wonders when it's time to filet fish....but I still don't have, or need, one in the front seat of the cop car.
(1)
(0)
SFC Ralph E Kelley
First for police forces - that's a hard one. I know personally the thought of being skewered by a pointy bar of metal scares the X outta me.
As for the last time a bayonet charge was happened? Its certainly not the preferred way, but its an option. Small units have often used the bayonet. Company/Battalion sized - not so much.
Places, dates and time of some modern-day bayonet charges:
Falklands War, 14 June 1982 - the Scots Guards and the Gurkhas chased 500 enemy troops off the summit of Mount Tumbledown in the predawn darkness of June 14.
Iraq War, May 14, 2004 - the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders surprised a force of 100 insurgents near Al Amara, Iraq
Afghan War, Oct 5, 2013 - soldiers from the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment in a bayonet charge against Taliban fighters in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Retain the option.
As for the last time a bayonet charge was happened? Its certainly not the preferred way, but its an option. Small units have often used the bayonet. Company/Battalion sized - not so much.
Places, dates and time of some modern-day bayonet charges:
Falklands War, 14 June 1982 - the Scots Guards and the Gurkhas chased 500 enemy troops off the summit of Mount Tumbledown in the predawn darkness of June 14.
Iraq War, May 14, 2004 - the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders surprised a force of 100 insurgents near Al Amara, Iraq
Afghan War, Oct 5, 2013 - soldiers from the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment in a bayonet charge against Taliban fighters in Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Retain the option.
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Bayonets have been used by small units and individuals in the US military as recent as Iraq.
The ONLY reason I could see police using bayonets (and not so much the stabbing but the threat of it) is in riot control....but there are better tools that are available nowadays.
The ONLY reason I could see police using bayonets (and not so much the stabbing but the threat of it) is in riot control....but there are better tools that are available nowadays.
(1)
(0)
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.
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
They've had access to military weapons BEFORE WW2. The cops who took down Bonnie and Clyde used BARs and Tommy Guns.
(3)
(0)
CPO Jon Campbell
That's true. I don't know how much war surplus was available before WWII, but I'm sure some weapons and vehicles made it into police departments. I know that when I worked for a municipality, everyone looked forward to making a least one trip a year down to DRMO try to score some cast off Army equipment.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
CPT(P) Paul Rolston
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I agree. The people that say take them away. Lets see you walk up to that SUV and pull the person out of the back seat with just a vest on. Hope your will is up to date.
(1)
(0)
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO2 Mark Saffell Agreed, and the citizenry as well! Note that the bad guys in the US do not drive armored vehicles to date.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
This topic appears improperly merged, this particular comment and discussion thread between myself and PO2 Mark Saffell in specific was regarding the militarized police response to the active shooter threats like San Bernadino, that's a more specific case question than militarization of police in general.
Any 4 star admins with undo merge power agree? SFC Mark Merino SSG Carlos Madden
Any 4 star admins with undo merge power agree? SFC Mark Merino SSG Carlos Madden
(1)
(0)
SSG Carlos Madden
Capt Richard I P. - They look the same to me too. There was nothing in the question title to indicate that it was specifically meant to be about San Bernardino.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ronald Williams
They need those like the United Nations needs offensive weapons platforms like Heavy Armor....oh wait....
(0)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
SPC Carl K.
You are stating exactly how I feel about this . I agree that the militant attitude of the cops nowadays has led to the unnecessary deaths of countless civilians. The last time I checked, the United States is not a war zone. I agree that there are times when a SWAT team is necessary, but they are using them for things that do not require the vehicles and equipment under normal circumstances. Also, when was the last time we heard about the threat of land mines? Those MRAPs are vehicles for war, and not for patrolling the streets of America and executing search warrants.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next