I think we're on the same page with a few differences.

 

 

I agree that many people have a problem with it, but I disagree that it's a problem. 

 

People don't like the way police look in helmets, heavy vests, and rifles. Those, however, are accessible to the public. As for the other things, mine-resistant vehicles have only ever been defensive measures. The other stuff aren't even used by the officers. They're used with special units for special tasks. Are you saying that they don't serve a purpose?

I am not saying they do not serve a purpose. I question the cost/benefit to their acquisition/maintenance and the flood gate scenario it opens to future acquisition and arming. I could be WAAAAY off but in my mind, the situations most types of this heavy gear would be needed for seems more up the alley for the national guard or the like. 

 

The problem isn't the perception that police forces have become military groups. The problem people have is that they have become military groups. It's not cops with pistols in holsters and vest with rifles/shotguns in the trunks of cruisers for emergency use with a specialized swat team on stand by. It's much more than that and appears to me at least, to be driven by the same type of arms race that keeps the defense industry booming. 

---

I'm still confused:

 

The gun nuts don't want the cops to have weapons that they think the constitution guarantees both gun nuts and police have the right to possess?

 

I think FSG hit the nail on the head.  He'd rather be better armed than the police that he fears are going to disarm him one day.

---

I am not saying they do not serve a purpose. I question the cost/benefit to their acquisition/maintenance and the flood gate scenario it opens to future acquisition and arming. I could be WAAAAY off but in my mind, the situations most types of this heavy gear would be needed for seems more up the alley for the national guard or the like. 

 

The problem isn't the perception that police forces have become military groups. The problem people have is that they have become military groups. It's not cops with pistols in holsters and vest with rifles/shotguns in the trunks of cruisers for emergency use with a specialized swat team on stand by. It's much more than that and appears to me at least, to be driven by the same type of arms race that keeps the defense industry booming. 

 

So state specifically which types of "heavy gear" that you are referring to.

 

Regular patrol officers are pretty much armed as you described, that being "pistols in holsters" and a vest.  Rifles are generally held in the trunks of police cars by those that are on the ERT or "SWAT" team.  Shotguns are/were generally held in the front seat in a secured holster where it can't be accessed unless needed.

 

Please give me some proof as to how police have "become military groups" and be specific.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So state specifically which types of "heavy gear" that you are referring to.

 

Regular patrol officers are pretty much armed as you described, that being "pistols in holsters" and a vest.  Rifles are generally held in the trunks of police cars by those that are on the ERT or "SWAT" team.  Shotguns are/were generally held in the front seat in a secured holster where it can't be accessed unless needed.

 

Please give me some proof as to how police have "become military groups" and be specific.

It matters not what examples I give you but I will try. Posted on this board, I believe by Eric (if memory serves) was his story about a cop at a restaurant/grocery store type place armed to the teeth well beyond what generally officers wear. No Knock raids or as I stated earlier a simple google image search:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=tracked+...CAYQ_AUoAQ

 

 

As a former officer and one who has already stated their opinion on the topic no examples will matter to you just like no rationale for the display of force/weaponry we have seen in recent years will convince me it's warranted nor acceptable. 

---

It matters not what examples I give you but I will try. Posted on this board, I believe by Eric (if memory serves) was his story about a cop at a restaurant/grocery store type place armed to the teeth well beyond what generally officers wear. No Knock raids or as I stated earlier a simple google image search:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=tracked+...CAYQ_AUoAQ

 

 

As a former officer and one who has already stated their opinion on the topic no examples will matter to you just like no rationale for the display of force/weaponry we have seen in recent years will convince me it's warranted nor acceptable. 

 

I'll let you in on a little secret.  The visual of a police officer "armed to the teeth" is a deterrent.  An "intimidating and aggressive look" is often favored by police because it gives a tactical advantage.  You have no idea what it is like to don the uniform and go out into the public, especially in areas that have a high crime rate.  You are instantly a "target" in these areas.

 

People like to complain about how teachers are paid.  Here's another secret that I'll let you in on.  A starting police officer earns a salary pretty much on par with a typical teacher in a public school.  These police officers put themselves in harms way every single day\night that they work.  They are exposed to and have to deal with some of the worst atrocities that can occur in daily life.

 

I'll give a few examples of what I did/saw when I served.

 

One night, we were called to a local bar where a fight broke out.  When we pulled up and tried to contain the situation, other people tried to inject themselves into the situation.  It immediately got pretty violent, and we initial responders felt that we were in jeopardy.  We ended up having to call the State Police to come and back us up.  We finally settled the crowd down and made some arrests.

 

On another night I had to respond to a car accident, single vehicle.  The occupant of the vehicle had run into a tree and the vehicle caught on fire.  When the fire was put out, we not only had to identify the "person" that was in the vehicle, but I had to go and tell the family of this person that she (it turns out that it was a female) was deceased.

 

On anther night I responded to a vehicle accident, and the driver of the vehicle was deceased.  It was a young male, and we determined his identity from what he was carrying with him.  As the initial officer on the scene I had to accompany the Chaplin to inform the family.  I remember seeing a note on the front door of the apartment from his mother that read something to the affect "this is the last time that I cover your paper route".  We waited until she got home, and little did she realize that the note that she left for the kid was in fact true.

 

The bottom line is this.  I shared some of my experiences while serving as a Deputy Sheriff.  I refuse to limit police agencies access to the tools necessary to carry out their job.  When people question or criticize police for what they do, I challenge them to walk in their shoes one day.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Can you give an example and show a source where police departments are given tanks?


Ever think about the idea that "launchers" might be useful to launch tear gas in the case of crowd control or someone barricaded somewhere?


I could be wrong, but I don't believe many, if any police departments use automatic weapons. Perhaps maybe a SWAT team, but that would be an extreme and unusual case.

There's a county in Georgia with a tank I've posted in other threads I'm to busy to find it make but I'll try later. There's also a county in North Dakota with one.

---

Launchers are simply converted tear-gas launchers. These are very often used during riots but also when murderers, kidnappers, and the like are barricaded inside a home.


It isn't just tanks. It includes mine-resistant vehicles and I don't imagine that I need to explain the problems police may have if they don't have something like that.


All weapons are removed from any vehicle taken from the Federal government.


Also, the departments are required to maintain the equipment, and if the Feds need it (I.E. WWIII), they can come back and get it. They wont need to build a new one. A lot of rifles are simple conversions into fully automatic. The public can do that too. Very, very few automatic rifles are given to the local departments. Rifles, plate carriers, gas masks, etc. are all practical equipment that are frequently used. Besides you just being uncomfortable with it, what legitimate reason do you have to disagree with it?

With all due respect you disagree because of your position as an officer. Your view is one of accountability and while I'm sure you are an honorable officer and from our interactions I have no reason to mistrust you that trust is not universal to all departments and more importantly the people who oversee them.


Government is government I naturally mistrust in all it's forms


Now forget that the police and military serve two separate purposes I have a big problem using the police as a peace keeping paramilitary force and a big problem using the military as a police keeping force.


One is to work with the community to prevent crime protect the innocent and keep the peace the other is to seek and destroy. When you mix the tools and role of these different organization it's a small step to tyranny.

---

Government is government I naturally mistrust in all it's forms


 

You mistrust government.

 

Do you mistrust all people in a government uniform?  Because, y'know, there's an actual person in that uniform.

---

You mistrust government.

 

Do you mistrust all people in a government uniform?  Because, y'know, there's an actual person in that uniform.

 

of course not trusting an individual is different from trusting an institution. Because there is some good and some bad in every institution it stands to reason limiting them to their purposed roles and equipping them to function those roles for which they where created is the best way to protect the integrity of the institution. Arming the police like the military doesn't help them police, it helps the occupy which isn't their purpose. 

 

I naturally mistrust the institution of government at all levels, government ALWAYS seeks to grow in power it is it's natural state. The reason our constitution starts with what the government can not do is because they knew this.

 

Some people only mistrust the areas of government they political don't align with, I argue it is all to be mistrust, limited and watched with a cautious eye.  That goes for the politicians, the military, the police, the healthcare providers, the educators, and so on. At best it's a necessary evil......

---

I trust anyone who uses their firearm to detonate explosives in a body of water.

 

It's a constitutional right.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I'll let you in on a little secret.  The visual of a police officer "armed to the teeth" is a deterrent.  An "intimidating and aggressive look" is often favored by police because it gives a tactical advantage.  You have no idea what it is like to don the uniform and go out into the public, especially in areas that have a high crime rate.  You are instantly a "target" in these areas.

 

People like to complain about how teachers are paid.  Here's another secret that I'll let you in on.  A starting police officer earns a salary pretty much on par with a typical teacher in a public school.  These police officers put themselves in harms way every single day\night that they work.  They are exposed to and have to deal with some of the worst atrocities that can occur in daily life.

 

I'll give a few examples of what I did/saw when I served.

 

One night, we were called to a local bar where a fight broke out.  When we pulled up and tried to contain the situation, other people tried to inject themselves into the situation.  It immediately got pretty violent, and we initial responders felt that we were in jeopardy.  We ended up having to call the State Police to come and back us up.  We finally settled the crowd down and made some arrests.

 

On another night I had to respond to a car accident, single vehicle.  The occupant of the vehicle had run into a tree and the vehicle caught on fire.  When the fire was put out, we not only had to identify the "person" that was in the vehicle, but I had to go and tell the family of this person that she (it turns out that it was a female) was deceased.

 

On anther night I responded to a vehicle accident, and the driver of the vehicle was deceased.  It was a young male, and we determined his identity from what he was carrying with him.  As the initial officer on the scene I had to accompany the Chaplin to inform the family.  I remember seeing a note on the front door of the apartment from his mother that read something to the affect "this is the last time that I cover your paper route".  We waited until she got home, and little did she realize that the note that she left for the kid was in fact true.

 

The bottom line is this.  I shared some of my experiences while serving as a Deputy Sheriff.  I refuse to limit police agencies access to the tools necessary to carry out their job.  When people question or criticize police for what they do, I challenge them to walk in their shoes one day.

As I alluded to in my previous post, due to your position and experiences there would be no evidence or examples or opinions that will sway you. That's just as understandable as I would hope you would see my point of view from the outside. Still, I have no idea how to respond to the above post so I will just let Eric do it for me.

 

With all due respect you disagree because of your position as an officer. Your view is one of accountability and while I'm sure you are an honorable officer and from our interactions I have no reason to mistrust you that trust is not universal to all departments and more importantly the people who oversee them.

Government is government I naturally mistrust in all it's forms


Now forget that the police and military serve two separate purposes I have a big problem using the police as a peace keeping paramilitary force and a big problem using the military as a police keeping force.


One is to work with the community to prevent crime protect the innocent and keep the peace the other is to seek and destroy. When you mix the tools and role of these different organization it's a small step to tyranny.

---

I trust anyone who uses their firearm to detonate explosives in a body of water.  fishing creatively.

 

It's a constitutional right.

---

Kaishakunin for hire.

* (disclaimer) If you think I'm serious, hit yourself in the face w/ a hammer.

 

There's a county in Georgia with a tank I've posted in other threads I'm to busy to find it make but I'll try later. There's also a county in North Dakota with one.

 

I would be interested to see any links that you provide.  My suspicion is that in both cases they are not actually "tanks", but armored vehicles.  Their use could be justified due to the terrain in the area(s) of their responsibility.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.