Militarized police

I was watching a rather interesting video on swatting, and realized how militarized the police and domestic law enforcement units in the US have become. As far as I know this is not the case in any other developed country in the world, such as in England, where the police are armed with only pepper sprays and handcuffs.

Now I don't live in America, nor am I an American, but I just want to know your thoughts: Should police be militarized? Is all that funding that goes into law enforcement tools and technology such as detector robots (as you see in the video I linked to) worth it, or do you think it could be spent better elsewhere?

Sadly, I'm afraid it makes sense to carry that much stuff in a country where everybody can carry five guns around legally.

Yes, SWAT teams are needed. If we have a heavy threat, maybe a bomb, maybe a school shooting, we need a special force that is trained to handle such situations. We need these men to be heavily armed, and they are.

Regular police officers, though, should not and do not have access to this kind of equipment. The amount of weaponry available to a regular officer is highly dependant on the grade of threat that the officer can expect to meet, which in the US is naturally a lot higher than it is in most other western countries. As for the british police, I think that pepper spray and handcuffs might be enough for a regular officer, but a higher ranking officer should have access to some kind of handgun to avoid situations like the one in the video.

I have no problem with the police being heavily armed so long as they're held accountable for their actions.

I really don't think that overwhelming police firepower deters or helps that much. The solution to curbing gun violence in this country is never to add more guns to the equation, even if it is law enforcement. And there are some places in the US that are known for police corruption and brutality, and you certainly don't want to add more fire to that volatile mix. The police need to be armed to remove serious threats, yes, but when it's bordering on a military-police or paramilitary force with less-than ideal oversight, it can get worrisome.

Arming the police only means further arming the ruling class with more powerful weaponry. Weapons that they can use to oppress the proletarian at the whims of bourgeois interest.

I see no legitimate issue whatsoever with a militarized police force, within reason. The police do not require Abrams tanks, Javelin missiles, F-22 fighters, or other similarly extreme military equipment. Police units having MRAPs, AR-15s, and full kevlar is completely fine by me, so long as there is sufficient oversight to prevent abuse of power.

The problem that some people see with the police getting more militarized is the event that the police or the state gets taken over by some evil organization. Many Americans that I have heard argue that in this hypothetical event, the general population needs to be able to take back the power. This would not be able to happen in our current society, but in the hypothetical event that it does happen and that we get in a situation like the current civil war in Syria, we don't want the police to have access to military equipment.

Even though I do not agree with the fact that the general public should have access to the same weaponry as the police, I see why the argument against military equipment in the police is made. I see the genuine interest in not having police officers with assault rifles, but that should not stop the SWAT teams from getting access to military grade equipment. As most countries in the world have it today, police carries only light equipment, and as I have said before, I think that police of different grades and with different tasks should be equipped accordingly.

Arguably the whole point of having SWAT teams is to have officers more militarized to deal with situations that the average patrol officer carrying a handgun and a taser just can't handle.

The key thing I believe people forget when they're considering their doomsday scenarios is that police officers are people too. They may not necessarily follow orders if they consider then unlawful or immoral. An attempt at a sudden installation of totalitarianism in the US would not be as cut and dry as some people assume.

General Bravo said:

Arguably the whole point of having SWAT teams is to have officers more militarized to deal with situations that the average patrol officer carrying a handgun and a taser just can't handle.

The key thing I believe people forget when they're considering their doomsday scenarios is that police officers are people too. They may not necessarily follow orders if they consider then unlawful or immoral. An attempt at a sudden installation of totalitarianism in the US would not be as cut and dry as some people assume.

Click to expand...

The reverse can also be said - those that are fine with it because police officers are the good guys are forgetting that police officers are people too, and they may not necessarily follow orders if they think they can get away with breaking the law and they want to.

I'm probably wrong on this, but I doubt that average run-of-the-mill officers get more than a handgun. Gun crime in America is pretty damn terrible, no denying that, but most police officers are trained to handle smaller situations, ones that doesn't involve mass weaponry. If it goes beyond their control? That's what SWAT teams are for. They're generally more armed, which makes sense because they go into situations that are much, much worse and require more armament.

The only reason I can see why people oppose this is because police corruption is a serious issue and there's very little being done about it. I've seen numerous videos and read articles about various cops committing crimes like rape and outright murder, and very little was ever done about it. Unfortunately, police tend to have the mindset of "I enforce the law, so I can break it to enforce it" and that's not good because most laws are made to prevent people from getting hurt/killed.

I really don't think it's necessary. I think an extra shotgun or rifle in the trunk of their car is more than enough (with the pistol of course). Police are in groups a lot of time, do the firepower between each one is more than enough. They should spend more money on the police cars though. Is it just me, or do police cars (the average) seem a little weak and underwhelming? They don't look like they could hold there own for very long...

Awkward. said:

I'm probably wrong on this, but I doubt that average run-of-the-mill officers get more than a handgun. Gun crime in America is pretty damn terrible, no denying that, but most police officers are trained to handle smaller situations, ones that doesn't involve mass weaponry. If it goes beyond their control? That's what SWAT teams are for. They're generally more armed, which makes sense because they go into situations that are much, much worse and require more armament.

The only reason I can see why people oppose this is because police corruption is a serious issue and there's very little being done about it. I've seen numerous videos and read articles about various cops committing crimes like rape and outright murder, and very little was ever done about it. Unfortunately, police tend to have the mindset of "I enforce the law, so I can break it to enforce it" and that's not good because most laws are made to prevent people from getting hurt/killed.

Click to expand...

Also, don't forget the massive amount of budget that goes into law enforcement. The American government allots way more budget for the military and police than healthcare, social welfare, administration, etc.

BadPokemon said:

I really don't think it's necessary. I think an extra shotgun or rifle in the trunk of their car is more than enough (with the pistol of course). Police are in groups a lot of time, do the firepower between each one is more than enough. They should spend more money on the police cars though. Is it just me, or do police cars (the average) seem a little weak and underwhelming? They don't look like they could hold there own for very long...

Click to expand...

I think every state/department can choose their own cars. However, we are certainly not the least intimidating...

Ivysaur said:

Sadly, I'm afraid it makes sense to carry that much stuff in a country where everybody can carry five guns around legally.

Click to expand...

The appropriate response to this, in my opinion, is harsher gun laws. There is honestly no good reason for someone to carry five guns, or for that matter anything more than one handgun. Even with a handgun I feel the person should have training on how to properly use the handgun, and they should be mentally stable enough not to just start shooting if someone pisses them off.

Countries like England and Japan have laws against owning guns, and they have next to no gun killings. Some argue that "Hey, you can still kill someone with a knife", but really, how many mass stabbings occur? Now, I'm not calling for a complete ban of all guns; America's inane gun culture and overall obsession with war and violence would make a complete gun ban make the bloodthirsty hicks riot in the streets with AK-47s, and I don't want to see my country devolve into that much violence. The wannabe assassins can have their guns, just no fully-auto rifles and no carrying anything more than a handgun in public. And no guns for insane people or criminals.

Plus, the government should really spend more money on healthcare and welfare; you know, helping people rather than locking them up for life or even shooting them down for having a little weed on them.