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