• 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!

Obama: Review military equipment for police

blackjack50

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Obama: Review military equipment for police
Obama orders review of military equipment sold to cops - CNN.com

So how do others feel about this? I suggest being careful about taking away things like stun grenades and armor when police are frequently dealing with gangbangers with AKs and "blank the police" mentalities.

I understand the whole "militarization" thing, but our military saw a shift to law enforcement tactics in the recent stint as occupation forces. So sure there is a blurred line, but equipment that saves the lives of cops is not exactly bad. Why wouldn't you want bullet resistant trucks and body armor and stun grenades that allow police to STUN an unruly suspect rather than KILLING them. Or stun a hostage taker long enough to save a hostage.

Sigh.
 
I'm not of the opinion that it's a problem of great significance, and it's likely being addressed now to placate the libertarian-left/ populist wing of his party.
 
Lip service to pacify yhe Libbos. Especially since 99% of the "military" equipment that cops have isn!t government issue.
 
stonewall50 said:
Obama: Review military equipment for police
Obama orders review of military equipment sold to cops - CNN.com

So how do others feel about this? I suggest being careful about taking away things like stun grenades and armor when police are frequently dealing with gangbangers with AKs and "blank the police" mentalities.

I understand the whole "militarization" thing, but our military saw a shift to law enforcement tactics in the recent stint as occupation forces. So sure there is a blurred line, but equipment that saves the lives of cops is not exactly bad. Why wouldn't you want bullet resistant trucks and body armor and stun grenades that allow police to STUN an unruly suspect rather than KILLING them. Or stun a hostage taker long enough to save a hostage.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he wants to reduce the readiness of the first responders to anarchy in the streets. When violent mindless groups of armed criminals are destroying property and hurting innocent people then the police need to be well equipped, otherwise they may not engage the chaos, like what happened during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
 
for once I agree with the president.
 
I don't think "military" equipment is being used but even if it was... it's not the inanimate objects that are the problem - it's the cops and their training on how and when it's appropriate to use whatever equipment they have. Better training = better cops.
 
stonewall50 said:
Obama: Review military equipment for police
Obama orders review of military equipment sold to cops - CNN.com

So how do others feel about this? I suggest being careful about taking away things like stun grenades and armor when police are frequently dealing with gangbangers with AKs and "blank the police" mentalities.

I understand the whole "militarization" thing, but our military saw a shift to law enforcement tactics in the recent stint as occupation forces. So sure there is a blurred line, but equipment that saves the lives of cops is not exactly bad. Why wouldn't you want bullet resistant trucks and body armor and stun grenades that allow police to STUN an unruly suspect rather than KILLING them. Or stun a hostage taker long enough to save a hostage.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

I'm delighted, and hope that it results in a complete policy reversal.
 
a351 said:
I'm not of the opinion that it's a problem of great significance, and it's likely being addressed now to placate the libertarian-left/ populist wing of his party.
Click to expand...

Perhaps its being addressed now because Americans are feed up with seeing policy looking and acting like the army we saw patrolling the streets of Fallujah a few years ago.
 
Ockham said:
I don't think "military" equipment is being used but even if it was... it's not the inanimate objects that are the problem - it's the cops and their training on how and when it's appropriate to use whatever equipment they have. Better training = better cops.
Click to expand...

This is true indeed. On the first day of the protests the police were sitting atop their MRAP's with their automatic weapons trained at peaceful protesters standing with their arms in the air. A very embarrassing sight for the rest of the world to be viewing the supposed greatest democracy on earth.
 
Porchev said:
Sounds like he wants to reduce the readiness of the first responders to anarchy in the streets. When violent mindless groups of armed criminals are destroying property and hurting innocent people then the police need to be well equipped, otherwise they may not engage the chaos, like what happened during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

Or instead of using stun grenades they use bullets.
 
Montecresto said:
Perhaps its being addressed now because Americans are feed up with seeing policy looking and acting like the army we saw patrolling the streets of Fallujah a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with police driving bullet proof vehicles?
 
Montecresto said:
This is true indeed. On the first day of the protests the police were sitting atop their MRAP's with their automatic weapons trained at peaceful protesters standing with their arms in the air. A very embarrassing sight for the rest of the world to be viewing the supposed greatest democracy on earth.
Click to expand...

I suppose they should expose themselves to molotovs right?

http://fox6now.com/2014/08/17/molotov-cocktails-tear-gas-fly-in-ferguson-missouri/

Just a little fire right?

It is too bad those police haven't killed the ones throwing molotovs. Or some Good Samaritan who sees those scumbags throwing them.
 
stonewall50 said:
Do you have a problem with police driving bullet proof vehicles?
Click to expand...

I do have a problem with the militarisation of the police, yes. I agree with both Mo. senator and governor. And I was very offended to see on day one, police atop of their armoured vehicles with their automatic weapons trained upon American citizens standing with their hands in the air!
 
Montecresto said:
I do have a problem with the militarisation of the police, yes. I agree with both Mo. senator and governor. And I was very offended to see on day one, police atop of their armoured vehicles with their automatic weapons trained upon American citizens standing with their hands in the air!
Click to expand...

Easily said when you aren't the one getting shot at right? Do you not have relatives or friends on the police force? You think having bullet proof, aka life saving equipment, is militarization? Or stun grenades, aka a less lethal option, is bad?

Armor is good. Armor means less dead cops. Is that bad? Or should cops not be allowed to have protective equipment?

Montecresto said:
I disagree with your concept of justice and am rather glad that they didn't.
Click to expand...

You realize Molotov cocktails are not water balloons right? You ever seen gasoline burns? It is damn sure justice if someone throwing the improvised equivalent of a hand grenade gets killed. Hell we don't use gasoline bombs on our enemies anymore.
 
stonewall50 said:
Easily said when you aren't the one getting shot at right? Do you not have relatives or friends on the police force? You think having bullet proof, aka life saving equipment, is militarization? Or stun grenades, aka a less lethal option, is bad?

Armor is good. Armor means less dead cops. Is that bad? Or should cops not be allowed to have protective equipment?



You realize Molotov cocktails are not water balloons right? You ever seen gasoline burns? It is damn sure justice if someone throwing the improvised equivalent of a hand grenade gets killed. Hell we don't use gasoline bombs on our enemies anymore.
Click to expand...

Sure dude, I'm glad you fellas aren't legislators. This is good that Obama has ordered a review, and hopefully it will be reigned in or just discontinued outright. I like the MO senators bi-partisan idea with Rand Paul as well.
 
Montecresto said:
Sure dude, I'm glad you fellas aren't legislators. This is good that Obama has ordered a review, and hopefully it will be reigned in or just discontinued outright. I like the MO senators bi-partisan idea with Rand Paul as well.
Click to expand...



Hopefully people who take away armored vehicles will be in the front lines dealing with people hurling Molotov cocktails.

The idea that cops shouldn't have bullet proof equipment is like saying firefighters shouldn't have fireproof equipment. Same logic.
 
Ps

You want to take away the "machine guns" on top of the cars? Strap water cannons on there. But keep in mind...refusing to have a lethal option is stupid. Especially when someone is deliberately trying to murder people with Molotov cocktails.
 
stonewall50 said:
Ps

You want to take away the "machine guns" on top of the cars? Strap water cannons on there. But keep in mind...refusing to have a lethal option is stupid. Especially when someone is deliberately trying to murder people with Molotov cocktails.
Click to expand...
Um, sorry but vehicles such as these are designed to make the occupants survive roadside bombs, not molotov cocktails.

IoJyIPa.jpg
 
PoS said:
Um, sorry but vehicles such as these are designed to make the occupants survive roadside bombs, not molotov cocktails.

IoJyIPa.jpg
Click to expand...

So you don't think someone who designed a vehicle meant to deal with explosives...didn't consider FIRE?? Actually a better question:

If hit by a Molotov, Would you rather be in that vehicle? Or a squad car? Come on.

But more important than that: these vehicles also serve to deal with OTHER threats, like bullets. You think cops shouldn't get that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom