• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization'

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
24,311
Reaction score
14,876
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
<snip>

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

:confused: I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

What say ye? :2wave:
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
<snip>

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

:confused: I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

What say ye? :2wave:

Watch an episode of Dallas SWAT. They use armored trucks to pull down barred windows and doors.

Maybe you think a better idea would be to have an unarmed, unprotected Sheriff like Andy Taylor from Mayberry knock on the doors of drug houses and violent armed suspects and talk them out.
 
My personal opinion is that it's time to separate police work into two distinct functions. We need general law enforcement exercising the traditional roles of cops but we also need a more heavily armed and more aggressively trained force to act as a first response to acts of terrorism. If I had my way SWAT would be a civilian force acting more or less as a posse to be called up only by the Mayor, Chief of Police or Sheriff.
 
Ferguson was neither caused by nor stopped by police using "military" equipment. This is another case of the big gov't seeking a big gov't solution to a big gov't created problem. The typical knee jerk reaction to "do something" when (black?) folks get upset and riot.

Ferguson was the local police being unable to preserve local order - not a national issue at all. The gov't solution tried was to mobilize state police (and possibly the national guard) to quell a (race??) riot that exceeded the capacity of the local PD to deal with it. If the Ferguson PD had helicopter gunships it would have still needed outside help.
 
Watch an episode of Dallas SWAT. They use armored trucks to pull down barred windows and doors.

Maybe you think a better idea would be to have an unarmed, unprotected Sheriff like Andy Taylor from Mayberry knock on the doors of drug houses and violent armed suspects and talk them out.


In situations like that SWAT should have a support role, not a front line role. Whenever possible a suspect who is presumed to be a violent threat should be taken when they are outside their home. Trying to take a violent suspect in their home means sending resources into a situation where the suspect is most likely to have the defensive advantage.
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
<snip>

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

:confused: I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

What say ye? :2wave:

The problem is that cops have turned into "storm troopers" and some actual believe they're some sort of paramilitary operatives...

I suppose force is actually needed at times, however it seem that this "storm trooper" nonsense has become the status quo over the past decade or so - or at least since 9/11..... So there is no doubt in my mind that the police have gone from civil servants to a military force in some areas.

I can't respect a cop that treats every potential "contactee" as a potential terrorist or danger.

This type of behavior doesn't only exist in "ghettos" this type of behavior is spilling over into some of the nicer middle class communities in the United States.

I suppose this is what happens when you basically give cops unlimited power and outfit them with military weaponry and vehicles.. You end up with a bunch of ego maniac wanna be badass clowns thinking they're above the law.

I would be glad to elaborate more, but I just wanted to be as brief as possible here.
 
I thought we already had this "problem" solved?

There's the regular police force, comprised of beat cops, traffic, vice, etc.

And then when the **** hits the fan, we have SWAT, who ARE a paramilitary force to be used at the discretion of our police.


Right?
 

What say ye? :2wave:
I think the police militarization is just a back door around the Posse Comitatus act. So I support this bill. Last I checked IEDs are not a regular occurrence on our roads, heck I do not think they even happen on our roads at all. I do not even think I have ever heard of criminals laying down suppressive fire on the police with a automatic weapon. Why do police need camo?Shouldn't they be seen if they are trying to maintain a police presence somewhere? I do not think they are trying to blend in with the pavement and black and white police cars. Are there disgruntled army snipers who can shoot a mile away and the police are hoping the camo makes them unseen to those disgruntled army snipers? Are they hoping that badguys will assume they are military and **** their britches upon the site of police wearing camo?
 
In situations like that SWAT should have a support role, not a front line role. Whenever possible a suspect who is presumed to be a violent threat should be taken when they are outside their home. Trying to take a violent suspect in their home means sending resources into a situation where the suspect is most likely to have the defensive advantage.

Back in Boy Scouts they talked about "being prepared" so there must be contingency plans and cops ready to go if there is an active shooter or threat---wherever they are. Inside or out.

Being former military, and from a family of military guys and cops---I'm all for using the latest military tech to protect soldiers and police. It's just common freakin sense. Maybe if the criminals would become less violent, then the police could become less "militarized."
 
I think one of the major issues are that many departments who receive this military gear are required to use it or they have to give it back, which give them incentive to go SWAT when the circumstances do not require it.

Perhaps if they weren't forced to use their flashbangs or lose them, they wouldn't end up being used on a sleeping infant.

IMO they should keep their toys for when they actually need them and lose them if they misuse them.

Maybe if the criminals would become less violent, then the police could become less "militarized."

You do realize violent crime has been on the decline for decades, right?
 
Back in Boy Scouts they talked about "being prepared" so there must be contingency plans and cops ready to go if there is an active shooter or threat---wherever they are. Inside or out.

Being former military, and from a family of military guys and cops---I'm all for using the latest military tech to protect soldiers and police. It's just common freakin sense. Maybe if the criminals would become less violent, then the police could become less "militarized."

I haven't done exhaustive research on the subject but from what I have been reading it doesn't seem that too many criminals are going after cops with AK's. Yes, cops are finding those weapons but it doesn't seem that they are getting used in any but a very few crimes. That's also why I recommend taking suspects out when they are away from their house. Even criminals don't usually head out the door in the morning with a long gun slung across their chest.
 
Watch an episode of Dallas SWAT. They use armored trucks to pull down barred windows and doors.

Maybe you think a better idea would be to have an unarmed, unprotected Sheriff like Andy Taylor from Mayberry knock on the doors of drug houses and violent armed suspects and talk them out.

Maybe YOU should actually read what I wrote. <smh>
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
<snip>

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

:confused: I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

What say ye? :2wave:




As an ex-cop I've been concerned about the increasing militarization of police for about 20 years. Not to mention other abuses.


I'd support this bill. The single biggest thing though, is to end the so-called "War on Drugs" and roll back the enhanced search-and-seizure powers that resulted from it.

Seriously. These days they send half a dozen cops geared up like Spec Ops to a situation we used to handle with two uniforms with sidearms...
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
<snip>

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

:confused: I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

What say ye? :2wave:

I'm as befuddled as you are. No easy answer. On the surface it sounds good, but the first time militarization is needed and it doesn't come, then people may sing a different tune.

It'll be interesting to see how far this goes.
 
My personal opinion is that it's time to separate police work into two distinct functions. We need general law enforcement exercising the traditional roles of cops but we also need a more heavily armed and more aggressively trained force to act as a first response to acts of terrorism. If I had my way SWAT would be a civilian force acting more or less as a posse to be called up only by the Mayor, Chief of Police or Sheriff.

SWAT teams are alteady under the direct charge of the police chiefs, aren't they? I think that's standard stuff.
 
SWAT teams are alteady under the direct charge of the police chiefs, aren't they? I think that's standard stuff.

Yes, but they aren't civilian.
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
<snip>

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

:confused: I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

What say ye? :2wave:

They may be paid to 'protect and serve' and even state that on their vehicles but they are not legally required to do either. Maybe that should be changed...
 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new Senate bill is the first proposed legislation to curb so-called police militarization after the disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, is sponsoring the legislation, which would block state and local police from receiving broad categories of military-grade equipment, including M-16 rifles, MRAP vehicles and camouflage equipment. He also proposes to require local police that have received such equipment in recent years to return it to the Defense Department.
<snip>

First post-Ferguson legislation aims to curb police 'militarization' | CBS 58 | National News

:confused: I dunno. I got mixed thoughts on this. I probably need to think on it a while.

On one hand, I do know that we need to get a grip on the swelling trend among the law enforcement community, thinking that they are all Rambo and all. King of the Hill. Alpha-Male, "Say Uncle," kind of bully's. This needs to be nipped in the bud. If it's not already too late. But they are PAID to "protect and serve." Not, "Intimidate and assault." So, yes, the legislation would be a step forward in reigning in these rogue police ideologies.

But, on the other hand, as criminals bolster their own fire power and become more over the top hostile, as they are trending to do as well, Sheriff Andy Taylor and Barney Fife cannot get the job done. And the military stays out of domestic civilian affairs, (Kent State and Waco notwithstanding.)

So who can we call when a severe, civilian, criminal offence requires a swift and overwhelming military style response? The police? Then we better let them keep the equipment. The military? Then we better let them get more involved in civilian affairs. Not sure that is a good idea either.

This really is a complex question that needs to have a lot of critical thought put into it.

What say ye? :2wave:

Damn, pansy-assed liberals... once again, they think they can sweet talk down a terrorist........ Wait, its Tom Colburn, R-OK that is behind this? Damn, pansy-assed liberals....

The problem with giving our police department these toys is the overwhelming propensity to want to play with these toys..... This is what happens when police want to play (and, unfortunately, instead of playing cops and robbers, they want play army)...

StLouis PD.jpg


Sorry, this is beyond "protect and serve" and up to "intimidate and torment"..... its almost




It's no way to run a community in a civil society.
 
Last edited:
I hate this situation ...... On one hand we have militant police and on the other we have rioters and looters....

The only group that actually gave a **** was the Tea Party and they wen down there and spend thousands of dollars just to make sure those that were looted and vandalized had a few bucks for repairs.....

What a bunch of racists right?
 
I hate this situation ...... On one hand we have militant police and on the other we have rioters and looters....

The only group that actually gave a **** was the Tea Party and they wen down there and spend thousands of dollars just to make sure those that were looted and vandalized had a few bucks for repairs.....

What a bunch of racists right?

The Tea Party are the only people who helped out? I'm calling bull**** on that one.
 
The Tea Party are the only people who helped out? I'm calling bull**** on that one.

Who was spending the money to help rebuild?
 
I hate this situation ...... On one hand we have militant police and on the other we have rioters and looters....

The only group that actually gave a **** was the Tea Party and they wen down there and spend thousands of dollars just to make sure those that were looted and vandalized had a few bucks for repairs.....

What a bunch of racists right?
It's called p&c insurance...
 
If I had my way SWAT would be a civilian force acting more or less as a posse to be called up only by the Mayor, Chief of Police or Sheriff.

LropwL9.jpg
 
I haven't done exhaustive research on the subject but from what I have been reading it doesn't seem that too many criminals are going after cops with AK's. Yes, cops are finding those weapons but it doesn't seem that they are getting used in any but a very few crimes. That's also why I recommend taking suspects out when they are away from their house. Even criminals don't usually head out the door in the morning with a long gun slung across their chest.

Yet...
 
This has happened before when cops were outgunned by 20s era mobsters and had to upgrade their weaponry to keep up if not ahead. Nothing new here.
 
Back
Top Bottom