• 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!

Military weapons and police

Ikari said:
Whatever the Police are entitled to wield, so should the People.

I think it is dubious indeed for the militarization of the Police. It's not a good thing. Of course you want the police to have the tools to do their jobs well and relatively safely (it's not a safe profession, and that should be understood). But I do not believe the police should be militarized.
Click to expand...

Even if the criminals they sometimes face are militarized? Having military weapons available to police departments does not mean they are going to patrol with uzis or M-16s, however if all hell breaks loose, I have no problem with Police having access to the heavy stuff.
 
Goshin said:
one of the few things Obama did that I approved of. I am not pleased with this decision to roll back the restrictions.


I've been in law enforcement, and even 20 years ago I was concerned about this trend. There's a tendency in PDs to justify the cost of having and maintaining the gear by using it, and possibly using it when it isn't really necessary.

Load a cop down with combat gear, he's liable to feel more like he should expect combat. Not the best mind-set.


I can see the other side too.... some criminals (and occasionally terrorists) these days come heavily geared up and the ability to meet and exceed that level of force may be an issue... but on the whole I just don't feel easy about this trend.
Click to expand...

As long as they do not do routine patrols with all of the heavy stuff, what's the problem? Are they not generally kept in an armory at the precinct and only checked out if all hell breaks loose?
 
ObamacareFail said:
Even if the criminals they sometimes face are militarized? Having military weapons available to police departments does not mean they are going to patrol with uzis or M-16s, however if all hell breaks loose, I have no problem with Police having access to the heavy stuff.
Click to expand...


If they are not patrolling with them what good are they. The reasoning you give as they need these weapons is to out gun criminals. Are the responding officers first supposed to go to the precinct to arm up before going to the call? Is the first officer the sacrificial lamb instill swat arrives? To be effective first responders would need them at least in the trunk of the car. IMO if it's in the trunk to take down a heavily armed gunman it's also in the trunk and can get used if a group of kids refuse leave their pool party.


I'm not totally against all military gear and see how some is useful but the program as it was and seems to be returning to is excessive in the material it can transfer so can't support Trumps rolling back of restrictions
 
countryboy said:
What about LEOs who are called upon to respond to domestic terror attacks? .38 revolver and a Crown Vic is sufficient?
Click to expand...



Apparently you didn't read my other post.

As I said, I can see both sides. Possible threats that might call for near-military-grade gear are more likely now than was once the case, yes. But actually 99% of the time a good sidearm and/or shotgun will suffice, and the problem with having the gear is PD feels a need to justify having and spending to maintain it by using it whether they need to or not.

Military-like gear might be needed by some departments once in a blue moon; but for most day-to-day policing it is overkill and doesn't really promote good relations between the public and the police.
 
Chillfolks said:
If they are not patrolling with them what good are they. The reasoning you give as they need these weapons is to out gun criminals. Are the responding officers first supposed to go to the precinct to arm up before going to the call? Is the first officer the sacrificial lamb instill swat arrives? To be effective first responders would need them at least in the trunk of the car. IMO if it's in the trunk to take down a heavily armed gunman it's also in the trunk and can get used if a group of kids refuse leave their pool party.


I'm not totally against all military gear and see how some is useful but the program as it was and seems to be returning to is excessive in the material it can transfer so can't support Trumps rolling back of restrictions
Click to expand...

Police have rifles in their cars. My local sheriff's office issue out MP5s in semi auto and full auto configurations.
 
Goshin said:
Apparently you didn't read my other post.

As I said, I can see both sides. Possible threats that might call for near-military-grade gear are more likely now than was once the case, yes. But actually 99% of the time a good sidearm and/or shotgun will suffice, and the problem with having the gear is PD feels a need to justify having and spending to maintain it by using it whether they need to or not.

Military-like gear might be needed by some departments once in a blue moon; but for most day-to-day policing it is overkill and doesn't really promote good relations between the public and the police.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, and I defer to your experience. And yes, I missed your other post.

I personally believe departments should be able to take advantage of the program, and acquire the assets necessary to respond to the potential threats we face in this crazy world we live in. But, I also believe there should be very strict rules of engagement concerning their deployment. Without these rules in place, I am not in favor of the acquisition of this military hardware.
 
Maccabee said:
Police have rifles in their cars. My local sheriff's office issue out MP5s in semi auto and full auto configurations.
Click to expand...


Do you know the caliber they use? My city recalled the full auto versions from police, they do still allow the semi auto version. The recall wasn't from Obama it was because an under trained officer misused one and the city caught hell.
 
Southern Dad said:
You can presume anything you want. It doesn't mean that you are right or wrong. The police use armored vehicles to protect themselves. A Crown Victoria offers very little protection. The people that officers are facing aren't worried about what is legal.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where are you getting the idea that street cops are rolling around in armored vehicles but that isn't the case. I know that New York is putting bulletproof panels in their cars but they aren't rolling around in armored trucks.
 
Chillfolks said:
Do you know the caliber they use? My city recalled the full auto versions from police, they do still allow the semi auto version. The recall wasn't from Obama it was because an under trained officer misused one and the city caught hell.
Click to expand...

I think they're 9mm. At least, that is my assumption. I've always known the MP5 to be mostly in 9mm.
 
Maccabee said:
I think they're 9mm. At least, that is my assumption. I've always known the MP5 to be mostly in 9mm.
Click to expand...


I know they made or make a .40 model. it's not really fun to shoot. My brothers semi auto really put a hurting on your hand after few rapid fire drills.

I guess it depends on what side arm caliber the department uses.
 
Chillfolks said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...=true&outputType=default-article&deferJs=true



Trump is rolling back restrictions on selling surplus military gear to local police agencies. I think it's a terrible idea that is going to lead thus country down a dark path.

Opinions??
Click to expand...

I agree but I have always held that if civilian police are able to use a certain type of firearm then other civilians ought to be able to freely own said weapon. Its a self policing (no pun intended) check on too militarized a police force.
 
PirateMk1 said:
It seems reasonable to me. Why should the police have stuff I cant?
Click to expand...

in terms of defensive firearms I agree. In terms of stuff like riot control-such as a CS projector or water cannon-I might be less inclined to agree. But if the cops have SMGs or M4s so should other civilians
 
Highly militarised and centrally controlled police are too dangerous to democratic and republican societies in the long run. They historically mutate into politically motivated gendarmeries which threaten liberty and prudent limits to centralized power. Police should be locally controlled and answerable to the communities in which they police. State police should be answerable not only to the state government but also to the local jurisdiction in which they are operating at any given time. Federal and State investigative bureaus should be limited to counselling, investigation and supporting state and local police forces only and federal officers should be armed only with side arms for personal protection.

Military grade combat weapons should be limited to special tactical teams at the local and state levels and not to the average beat cops. Federal police and law enforcement agents should not have access to such weapons and should rely on local and state forces for such firepower support. Heavy weapons like machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, armed robots, armed drones, RPGs, light anti-tank weapons, armoured vehicles and MRAPs should not be in police or non-military hands at all. If needed in an extraordinary situation they should be made available under the direction of the state national guard in an aid to the civil power role. Armed branches of the US Federal Government law enforcement agencies should be disbanded and personnel reassigned to investigative, liaison, signals and intelligence gathering tasks with only side arms for personal protection. The muscle of police forces should come from locally and state controlled police and should not be be available to higher levels of government. Tactical squads and SWAT teams should only be allowed to local and state police forces and should be removed from Federal control. The exception to this should be one to two joint State/Federal controlled rapid response and hostage rescue teams per state to manage extraordinary threats to public order.

The Federal Government should have to rely on local and state police forces for extraordinary firepower support so organisations like the FBI, the ATF, the DEA, etc. should be denied access to military grade weapons unless they are operating outside of American territorial jurisdiction. They should aid and guide local and state level police and law enforcement forces rather than operating independently while within US borders. Beyond the USA's borders they can be armed and operated as the US Federal Government sees fit. Policing in peaceful territories controlled by the US is a grey area but I am inclined to think that territories should be treated as if they were states as far as policing is concerned.

The use of private military and security companies and personnel to augment or replace police forces on public duty should be illegal. In the event of critical manpower shortages then private security personnel could be temporarily placed under local or state jurisdiction so long as they were limited to acting exactly like reguar public ally controlled police and answerable to public police review boards and local,or state governments. This should never be more than a temporary ad hoc arrangement. This ban extends to private firms conducting domestic surveillance and domestic intelligence gathering functions in parallel with government organisations and police forces. Private investigators and private security operating on private property are not subject to this ban except when their actions cross into the mandate of public policing.

Finally the military mind-set within police forces must be reduced. Police forces are not occupying military forces, so their training and mind-set should reflect this. Police should be trained to deescalate policing interactions wth the public rather than being trained to rapidly escalating to the use of lethal force. Civilian training should replace military style training. Community policing should be the norm and ideally police should live in the same locale which they are in charge of policing. Where possible tandem walking and biking patrols should used as much as is practicable and community relations and education should be the responsibility of every police officer at least half a work-day each week or equivalent work cycle.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
If they are not patrolling with them what good are they. The reasoning you give as they need these weapons is to out gun criminals. Are the responding officers first supposed to go to the precinct to arm up before going to the call? Is the first officer the sacrificial lamb instill swat arrives? To be effective first responders would need them at least in the trunk of the car. IMO if it's in the trunk to take down a heavily armed gunman it's also in the trunk and can get used if a group of kids refuse leave their pool party.


I'm not totally against all military gear and see how some is useful but the program as it was and seems to be returning to is excessive in the material it can transfer so can't support Trumps rolling back of restrictions
Click to expand...

I would not have a problem with keeping them stashed in the trunk
 
countryboy said:
I don't disagree, and I defer to your experience. And yes, I missed your other post.

I personally believe departments should be able to take advantage of the program, and acquire the assets necessary to respond to the potential threats we face in this crazy world we live in. But, I also believe there should be very strict rules of engagement concerning their deployment. Without these rules in place, I am not in favor of the acquisition of this military hardware.
Click to expand...

I agree.....for routine patrol duty, cops do not need to be armed like Navy Seals, however if all hell breaks loose, such as a major terrorist attack, they should have them available for deployment.
 
Chillfolks said:
I know they made or make a .40 model. it's not really fun to shoot. My brothers semi auto really put a hurting on your hand after few rapid fire drills.

I guess it depends on what side arm caliber the department uses.
Click to expand...
I know the sheriff's office use .40 cal for their sidearms. I'm not sure if that translates to their MP5s. Either way, deputies have the option of switching out their issued MP5 with an AR with their own money.
 
spud_meister said:
In what situation do you believe the police would be facing something that also wouldn't threaten the general population?
Click to expand...

private citizens actually are more likely to need high cap weapons than cops

1) private citizens never pick the time and the place when they have to confront violent criminals

2) private citizens rarely have backup available as quickly as cops. They don't generally carry two way radios with armed help on the line with them.

3) Most criminals (though this has changed a bit) don't seek out confrontations with armed cops.

4) most cops wear body armor-almost no private citizens do and in some states, its illegal
 
Chillfolks said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...=true&outputType=default-article&deferJs=true



Trump is rolling back restrictions on selling surplus military gear to local police agencies. I think it's a terrible idea that is going to lead thus country down a dark path.

Opinions??
Click to expand...


We just don't have enough information as to the reasons given for the rollback being legitimate. Sessions gave examples of what could be given the locals, like helicopters, etc., but did the previous restrictions include helicopters, etc.?
 
Chillfolks said:
Why would you say that? Those military versions usually are automatic. Unless congress changes the laws concerning civilians owning such weapons, private ownership is still illegal under the FOAP 1986 restricting private ownership to pre 86 manufacturing years.
How with it effect civilian version of semi auto AR.
Click to expand...

There are (always) loopholes. You'd have to jump through hoops to class 3 yourself an ok for auto. Become FFL etc.

It can be done, but it's a country club per year license.

Autos also waste a ton of ammo.
 
Chillfolks said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...=true&outputType=default-article&deferJs=true



Trump is rolling back restrictions on selling surplus military gear to local police agencies. I think it's a terrible idea that is going to lead thus country down a dark path.

Opinions??
Click to expand...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/rise-of-the-warrior-cop-1375908008

Rodney Balko has been writing about this for quite some time. Yes, the militarization of police in this country is harmful to society and the rule of law.

No Obama fan here, but he did the right thing in ending or reducing the program. Trump doesn't care about things like that because he is part of the 1% and along with his Good Buddy Arpaio, is above the law.
 
spud_meister said:
In what situation do you believe the police would be facing something that also wouldn't threaten the general population?
Click to expand...

You gonna lob a couple flashbang grenades through the windows of a crack house to subdue the drug-addled lunatic without killing his hostage? Or would they just be cool things to have around the house?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom