Militarization of police

[rocket88]

You're over-reacting. You know that, right? An unarmed, armored truck is absolutely not an offensive weapon.

So basically, no problem whatsoever. You inherently trust the government to show restraint. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were the government loving libbo...

 

[apdst]

So basically, no problem whatsoever. You inherently trust the government to show restraint. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were the government loving libbo...

No, of course not, but I do find it highly ironic that YOU suddenly don't trust the government.

My thing is, I'm not seeing the threat that you're so worried about. It's...just...an...armored...truck!

 

[rocket88]

No, of course not, but I do find it highly ironic that YOU suddenly don't trust the government.

My thing is, I'm not seeing the threat that you're so worried about. It's...just...an...armored...truck!

I've never trusted the government. We both know, however, that today it's armored personnel carriers, and tomorrow it's tanks and blackhawk helicopters. Government is never satisfied until it has more power.

 

[apdst]

I've never trusted the government. We both know, however, that today it's armored personnel carriers, and tomorrow it's tanks and blackhawk helicopters. Government is never satisfied until it has more power.

Oh, I get it...this is, "scary black rifle syndrome"...lol!

Tell ya what, when they show up with an infantry fighting vehicle, mounted with an M-240C, and an M-242 automatic cannon, with HET and/or APDST uploaded in the feeder, you let me know and I'll share your concern.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Absolutely, it is the people using it.

The question is, do you trust the government to show restraint?

So far, I've seen no evidence to suggest use of this equipment is unrestrained. There have been isolated incidents of misuse by individual police officers, but wholesale misuse is just a myth at this point. I'd be far more concerned with government misuse of tracking technology, privacy rights, and the use of drones domestically.

 

[PirateMk1]

You're over-reacting. You know that, right? An unarmed, armored truck is absolutely not an offensive weapon.

I beg to differ. Been there done that got the T-shirt several times. An armored vehicle even unarmed is a very effective offensive weapon when used as such in a low counter threat environment. Dynamic entries, battering ram, cover for advancing officers, ect. You get the picture.

 

[Caine]

So, no problem with government occupying the populace with military force?

So..... A truck = Military Force?

*Drama Queeeeeen*

 

[Caine]

1.Police are not the miltiary.They should not be getting military weapons and gear.

2.They are also getting M16 assault rifles.

3.Some of those armored vehicles are MRAP. Have local police ever ran over IEDs on the road.

The Federal Government has recognized that local police departments are our country's first defense/response to a terrorist attack on American soil.
So of course they are going to provide them equipment to help them fulfill that role should that day come.

 

[Caine]

I beg to differ. Been there done that got the T-shirt several times. An armored vehicle even unarmed is a very effective offensive weapon when used as such in a low counter threat environment. Dynamic entries, battering ram, cover for advancing officers, ect. You get the picture.

So now we want Officers to "play fair" and have the same chances to die as everyone else?

 

[PirateMk1]

So now we want Officers to "play fair" and have the same chances to die as everyone else?

What are you talking about??? The poster I was responding to said armored vehicles cant be used offensively and I said they could be easily. If you have a point to make I suggest you make it, and make it clear.

 

[apdst]

I beg to differ. Been there done that got the T-shirt several times. An armored vehicle even unarmed is a very effective offensive weapon when used as such in a low counter threat environment. Dynamic entries, battering ram, cover for advancing officers, ect. You get the picture.

The 59 Plymouth could be used the same way.

 

[Caine]

What are you talking about??? The poster I was responding to said armored vehicles cant be used offensively and I said they could be easily. If you have a point to make I suggest you make it, and make it clear.

You quoted an armored vehicle being used to provide cover for Officers.

If Officers are serving a high risk warrant and become under assault from armed thugs inside a residence... they will use the armored vehicle if available to provide cover.... and you, specifically, mentioned this act as a bad thing.

I don't get it.

 

[rocket88]

So..... A truck = Military Force?

*Drama Queeeeeen*

It's funny to me how many self-professed Libertarians apparently have no problem with heavily armed government forces with unlimited power....When you're talking about "jackbooted forces" coming down on you, this is what it's about - not Obama, not the IRS...

Where does it end? What is the magic level of "OK vs. not OK?" Battle tanks? Apache helicopters?

Here's a great idea - let's give the IRS the same level of firepower as any local police force. Maybe then the right will take notice.

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't encounter this kind of problem here in Toronto, or anywhere in Canada, that I know of, but I have to say I understand the police department mentality when offered enhanced weaponry and tactical equipment, usually at no cost to them. When you're dealing with often shrinking budgets, often outdated equipment, and often criminals who are better armed and equipped than are the police, I can see why they'd jump at the chance.

But I'll take the line that gun ownership advocates take, which I fully believe - it isn't the gun that is dangerous, it's the person who uses it improperly or illegally. Likewise, it isn't the extra weaponry or armored vehicles that is causing the problem, it's police officers who aren't properly trained not only in their use but in the circumstances in which they are to be used and the potential for things to go wrong.

You make several good points, but I think you are forgetting the dynamic, "If you build it, they will come".

That is, given this unnecessary equipment, once in possession will the police 'find' a use for it? Will they use it, as they did in Ferguson, simply because they have it to use, even though the use is unnecessary?

I say yes they will, and that its use runs counter to good relations between the police and the community.

 

[Gaius46]

Now, you know as well as I do that the average know the difference between an issue M-16 and a civilian AR platform.

I've pointed out to you in another thread where the DOD makes unmodified M16s available through the 1033 Program.

 

[braymoore]

There is nothing wrong with the police having a vehicle to protect themselves. In today's world who knows what kind of firearms someone could have. It's better to have more protection then have someone kill a bunch of cops in the patrol vehicles and then kill them self in the end.

 

[apdst]

I've pointed out to you in another thread where the DOD makes unmodified M16s available through the 1033 Program.

You're wrong. Sorry!

 

[CanadaJohn]

You make several good points, but I think you are forgetting the dynamic, "If you build it, they will come".

That is, given this unnecessary equipment, once in possession will the police 'find' a use for it? Will they use it, as they did in Ferguson, simply because they have it to use, even though the use is unnecessary?

I say yes they will, and that its use runs counter to good relations between the police and the community.

There clearly is a balance to be reached between what is needed/desired in any given situation and sometimes police will get it wrong but I don't blame them for erring on the side of caution. Better to be over-prepared for a riot that ends up staying peaceful than to be under-prepared for a peaceful demonstration that ends up burning and looting a community. During the G20 meetings here in Toronto a couple of years back, I watched as the police held back as Black Bloc thugs tore up, burned, looted a good chunk of downtown Toronto while the vast majority of demonstrators were peaceful and then the next day, after the Black Bloc had skipped town, the police used heavy handed tactics to clear the streets and arrest hundreds of innocent people. That was a complete and utter disaster of planning and application by the police leadership in charge and not a function of the equipment they had at their disposal.

In Ferguson, recently, I don't believe we saw a lot of unnecessary "militarized" force being used - clearly, the first nights of the looting and burning were not handled well by authorities and perhaps the heavy-handed presence that police and national guard displayed in later days was a little over the top, but in my view everything must be done to protect the person and property of innocent people when rampaging thugs are intent on destruction.

It is reasonable, however, for citizens to be wary of where this is going and to voice concern and opposition before some things get too entrenched. And it is true that police will want to experiment with their new toys no matter what that new toy is. As long as it's within reason and can be rationalized, I'm not too opposed.

 

[Gaius46]

You're wrong. Sorry!

Kindly prove it. I've given you documentation to support my position.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

An unarmed, armored truck is absolutely not an offensive weapon.

Until they arm it.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

The 59 Plymouth could be used the same way.

I doubt anyone would object to cops being issued military surplus 59 Plymouths.

(And again, the one in the OP is a 60, not a 59.)

 

[apdst]

Until they arm it.

When they do, you let us know.

 

[Fearandloathing]

It's funny to me how many self-professed Libertarians apparently have no problem with heavily armed government forces with unlimited power....When you're talking about "jackbooted forces" coming down on you, this is what it's about - not Obama, not the IRS...

Where does it end? What is the magic level of "OK vs. not OK?" Battle tanks? Apache helicopters?

Here's a great idea - let's give the IRS the same level of firepower as any local police force. Maybe then the right will take notice.

I do not live in the US, by choice. I do not understand what it is Americans are so afraid of.

I no longer travel in the US, despite having family and friends there, because of the military-like conditions, assault rifles at the border and heavy military equipment. It actually frightens me.

As a journalist I was a guest of Solidarity in Poland in the late 1980's during the Soviet occupation. We knew we had to be careful of where we said what, but the actual military presence from Krakow to Warsaw was no where near what I see in the US today.

A lot of people will point at Vancouver's hockey riot in 2011, and say wouldn't you have wanted an armored vehicle for that?

No. No one was injured, no cops, a few minor burns from self inflicted stupidity but nothing serious. The last riot we had was a celebration until SWAT showed up and nailed a guy and blinded him with a rubber bullet, another guy died falling while trying to get away from an assault of bean bag bullets.....

 

[Caine]

I doubt anyone would object to cops being issued military surplus 59 Plymouths.

(And again, the one in the OP is a 60, not a 59.)

Oh lord. Car nuts.
Does it really matter if it is a 60 or a 59?

 

[SILVER SURFER]

Oh lord. Police and military nuts.

Oh lord. Car nuts.
Does it really matter if it is a 60 or a 59?

Nope. But since you missed the point of my post, maybe this will help



Oh, and BTW, the one you posted



is a 69. Dunno about the Charger - anything that new doesn't interest me.