What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why are local police given military equipment? (1 Viewer)

You're limiting the definition of tank too narrowly.  Nobody that I've seen is saying the police have am Abrams.  But the general definition of a tank is an armored vehicle carrying guns, traveling on a continuous articulated metal track.
Really? You are in the military. If you called a M-113 (which fits the definition above) a tank.... you wouldn't get laughed at uncontrollably? If you say no- you would not, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, I hold my ground.

 
Really though, I don't care if they have a tank, an APC, a Bradley fighting vehicle or drones.  Just as long as they're properly trained and act lawfully. 

 
Really? You are in the military. If you called a M-113 (which fits the definition above) a tank.... you wouldn't get laughed at uncontrollably? If you say no- you would not, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, I hold my ground.
Different context. I get your point, especially with the public perception.  Frankly we're arguing about the wrong thing imo. 

 
Really though, I don't care if they have a tank, an APC, a Bradley fighting vehicle or drones.  Just as long as they're properly trained and act lawfully. 
I care if my tax dollars are paying for them. I would much rather a homeless person gets their meds than some suburb gets an armored vehicle and has to pay to maintain it.

 
Really though, I don't care if they have a tank, an APC, a Bradley fighting vehicle or drones.  Just as long as they're properly trained and act lawfully. 
My point on semantics of the word "tank" is that it is a scare tactic used to basically say "OMG, the police have tanks!" That is why I am pushing back on it. Tank is 100% a military word. Even people who don't know the difference between an Abrams, Bradley or a freaking Humvee knows that tank = military kills everything.

 
It is not a tank. Never was a tank and is not a tank. It is an armored personnel carrier.
I guess we can distinguish between armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, and true battle tanks -- but I think they are all tanks in most people's minds (and dictionaries).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess we can distinguish between armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, and true battle tanks -- but I think they are all tanks in most people's minds.
And as I just stated above.... I believe the semantics of that is meaningful. TANK is a scary word- because a tank does one thing- blow stuff up. So, someone uninformed hears tank and their thinking is automatically directed towards non-civilian policing activities. What on earth does our police forces need with a tank! But an APC? Well, I guess it could be used to transport officers in a dangerous situation in safety to achieve an objective when there are bad guys held up in some building. But a tank?! Words have meaning. Often those meanings are chosen for reasons. In this instance, I think it can be chosen to manipulate thinking.

 
I care if my tax dollars are paying for them. I would much rather a homeless person gets their meds than some suburb gets an armored vehicle and has to pay to maintain it.
Saving tax dollars is what this program does. The transfer of the equipment is taking a sunk cost and adding value in that local municipalities don't have to spend money on other equipment to do certain jobs. The whole entire purpose of this program is to save your tax dollars.

 
I care if my tax dollars are paying for them. I would much rather a homeless person gets their meds than some suburb gets an armored vehicle and has to pay to maintain it.
I think chad is right on the costs / intent here but I would like to see a breakdown of expenses. 

 
I think it is worth while to note that these transfers are largely going to the SWAT teams of the PD's. SWAT is Special Weapons And Tactics. Since they were created back in the 60's they always had military type equipment... things like assault weapons, sniper rifles and grenade launchers. Some of the transfers may be a bit 'much' for some rural community middle of no where.... but how big communities are Newton, Conn or DeKalb, IL? I would much rather a transfer of some unused APC to middle of no where America than have cops desperately trying to figure out a way to breach a school where gunmen are killing children when they have only their sidearms and maybe a shotgun. It is not like we are talking about rolling MRAP's down your street on patrol.

 
MRAP is not a tank. It could be invaluable in savings lives in a school shooting situations like Columbine or the multitude of ones since.

Though the grenade launchers and M-16's can have use in police forces- I am not sure they are the right fit for a unit tasked for policing schools.
Assuming they are used in special situations, what is the difference? Why should police in schools have access to lesser equipment and? The kid at Sandy Hook had an AR-15. So have multiple other shooters in mass shooting scenarios. How are police supposed to counter a shooter armed with an assault rifle when they only have a 9mm handgun?

 
Fwiw:

After 18 months of pressure and activism, the Labor/Community Strategy Center reached an agreement with the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles School Police Department to de-miitarize school police.  Asreported by Counter Punch, they agreed to return all military grade weapons procured from the federal 1033 Program, withdraw completely from the program and to apologize for the policy that brought the weapons to LA schools in the first place.

Weapons the LA School Police will return to the feds include a tank, a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP), three grenade launchers and 61 M-16 rifles.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com
I am not going to attack posters who doubted me because I think that's the purpose of the thread to start with. To bring to light something we should perhaps discuss. 

Intelligent people discuss ideas

Idiots discuss/gossip about people/individuals 

We are conditioned by the government and media to accept that this is normal when in fact it isn't. The police should not be armed with more than what normal citizens are armed with. Very rare does a police unit fall prey to being under loaded with weapons and such. We cannot allow ourselves to be monitored like slaves for the rest of eternity. And we are conditioned to not ask questions much...be honest folks. 

 
Icon, why do you own an AR-15 other than its legal? I understand you have the right to own that gun, in fact I support it but I myself do not own guns, never fired one to be blunt. And I've lived in Los Angeles and Miami for the last 15+ years. I'm curious why you don't own just a hand gun, why the bigger weapons?

My guess is they make you feel safe and you have a passion for them and enjoy owning them. That's my guess, and if true I would ask what does owning the gun do to make you feel safer? From who exactly? 

 
It was posted many times armored vehicles...which got twisted into tanks and suddenly F-16s to handout speeding tickets...whatever semantics you want to try and pull which always lowers the level of discussion when everyone has to get hung up on technicalities that do nothing to change the OP but that's what spinmeisters do. 

 
The police should not be armed with more than what normal citizens are armed with.

 We cannot allow ourselves to be monitored like slaves for the rest of eternity. 
I disagree with the first premise.  I'd rather the police be able to arm themselves, competently and quickly, with to match the threat.  For most situations they don't need grenade launchers and APCs. But when they're needed I want them trained to use the means necessary. 

On the second, okay.  But again, I want the police to have the ability to wiretap and otherwise acquire information following constitutional procedures. 

 
I disagree with the first premise.  I'd rather the police be able to arm themselves, competently and quickly, with to match the threat.  For most situations they don't need grenade launchers and APCs. But when they're needed I want them trained to use the means necessary. 

On the second, okay.  But again, I want the police to have the ability to wiretap and otherwise acquire information following constitutional procedures. 
Bingo

 
I disagree with the first premise.  I'd rather the police be able to arm themselves, competently and quickly, with to match the threat.  For most situations they don't need grenade launchers and APCs. But when they're needed I want them trained to use the means necessary. 

On the second, okay.  But again, I want the police to have the ability to wiretap and otherwise acquire information following constitutional procedures. 
I have a better idea. Why not a volunteer force with perhaps 50% cops and 50% citizens for the "Big Emergency" situations which almost will never happen? The high grade weapons need to be locked away with a code that can only be opened between a combo of police/citizen. 

The police are becoming armed to the point that if a community needed to rise up, even with the right to own a gun, no match for anything the police have now.

Imagine one day that everyone that is working for minimum wages up to about $15 an hour plus all the folks out of work or underemployed suddenly got together thru proper leadership and united to take down the upper class in this country. Because one day in the not too distant future these folks are going to get fed up and revolt/rebel whatever or however you want to paint the picture. I don't want a nation where people cannot protest and recall a government that they elected. 

Public officials and Public servants work for the Public or at least they are supposed to. My taxes and all of yours pay for all this. 

Wake up folks and smell what you're shoveling around. 

This isn't Right/Left, it's really about humans. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a better idea. Why not a volunteer force with perhaps 50% cops and 50% citizens for the "Big Emergency" situations which almost will never happen? The high grade weapons need to be locked away with a code that can only be opened between a combo of police/citizen. 

The police are becoming armed to the point that if a community needed to rise up, even with the right to own a gun, no match for anything the police have now.

Imagine one day that everyone that is working for minimum wages up to about $15 an hour plus all the folks out of work or underemployed suddenly got together thru proper leadership and united to take down the upper class in this country. Because one day in the not too distant future these folks are going to get fed up and revolt/rebel whatever or however you want to paint the picture. I don't want a nation where people cannot protest and recall a government that they elected.

Public officials and Public servants work for the Public or at least they are supposed to. My taxes and all of yours pay for all this. 

Wake up folks and smell what you're shoveling around. 

This isn't Right/Left, it's really about humans. 
This seems to come down to whether you'd prefer the cops to be able to match organized crime or whether you want the average citizen to match the cops.  Personally, I want the cops to be able to match the people who intend to cause unlawful violence.  Plus I don't think the cops having an APC is preventing protests. 

 
I have a better idea. Why not a volunteer force with perhaps 50% cops and 50% citizens for the "Big Emergency" situations which almost will never happen? The high grade weapons need to be locked away with a code that can only be opened between a combo of police/citizen. 

The police are becoming armed to the point that if a community needed to rise up, even with the right to own a gun, no match for anything the police have now.

Imagine one day that everyone that is working for minimum wages up to about $15 an hour plus all the folks out of work or underemployed suddenly got together thru proper leadership and united to take down the upper class in this country. Because one day in the not too distant future these folks are going to get fed up and revolt/rebel whatever or however you want to paint the picture. I don't want a nation where people cannot protest and recall a government that they elected. 

Public officials and Public servants work for the Public or at least they are supposed to. My taxes and all of yours pay for all this. 

Wake up folks and smell what you're shoveling around. 

This isn't Right/Left, it's really about humans. 
I would submit that most police forces are small enough, relative to the population they police, that they could not quell a popular uprising.  Now the national guard in conjunction with police and other law enforcement maybe, but then if it is a popular uprising might not they be rising up too.

That said, questions, oversight, limitations, these things need to be constantly discussed and addressed.  The Police work for us, and they should remember and respect that.  I think they do, but reminders may be important and should not be considered negative, they should be welcomed by a responsible police force.

 
Interesting. No replies about how the police department in Orlando is too militarized? I mean, we are talking about military style Kevlar helmets and armored vehicles here!

 
One of my local cities got one recently.  It's ridiculous, although the local cops seem to like it.  They like to cite the San Bernadino incident as a situation where one is necessary. 

The reality is that the US government is basically pushing the cost of storage and upkeep onto the municipalities. 

 
It was posted many times armored vehicles...which got twisted into tanks and suddenly F-16s to handout speeding tickets...whatever semantics you want to try and pull which always lowers the level of discussion when everyone has to get hung up on technicalities that do nothing to change the OP but that's what spinmeisters do. 
Like trying to claim that local police forces aren't normal US citizens?

 
Chadstroma said:
Didn't see that but that is exactly what that kind of stuff is useful for with civilian police departments.
Sure. If only they would just use it for terrorist and hostage situations, I doubt many people would complain.

 
sho nuff said:
And the bearcat thing or whatever that busted holes in the wall to help rescue hostages.


Chadstroma said:
You see the military style Kevlar helmet that saved the cops life in Orlando?


Chadstroma said:
Didn't see that but that is exactly what that kind of stuff is useful for with civilian police departments.
The orlando situation was a horrible one... but I think it closes the case to any reasonable person arguing against this type of equipment available to law enforcement. 

 
One of my local cities got one recently.  It's ridiculous, although the local cops seem to like it.  They like to cite the San Bernadino incident as a situation where one is necessary. 

The reality is that the US government is basically pushing the cost of storage and upkeep onto the municipalities. 
the reality is the municipalities' forces appear to find this equipment worthwhile.  If the city government didn't want to pay for the equipment they won't take it.

 
The orlando situation was a horrible one... but I think it closes the case to any reasonable person arguing against this type of equipment available to law enforcement. 
Not really.  There's still a very reasonable and articulable argument to be made against such practice.*  But obviously in this case it worked out and we can all be thankful it did.  

* I think the best argument is the economic one - that spending municipal dollars on items and training that will likely never be necessary is -EV.  I view the Orlando situation like chasing a gutshot straight draw without pots odds.  It's great when it works (like the Orlando situation), but over time it's not the right decision. 

 
So we're willing to trample on the 2nd amendment to "potentially save a few folks",  but we're not willing to spend $50k/yr on training and maintenance to potentially save a few folks? 

Nah

 

 
As long as the police are going to be given military type weapons then I cannot support the assault weapons ban. 

Sorry...humans cannot be trusted and especially those in positions of power. 

 
I guess the answer to the question now is...they are given such equipment because we are allowing citizens (even those with major red flags) to purchase weapons like we saw in use in Orlando.

 
So we're willing to trample on the 2nd amendment to "potentially save a few folks",  but we're not willing to spend $50k/yr on training and maintenance to potentially save a few folks? 

Nah

 
1.  If you're replying to my post/argument, nowhere in it does it advocate for trampling on the second amendment.  

2. That $50k/yr could go to other ways to save lives: the most obvious route would be to employ another police officer to work the most dangerous beat, respond more quickly to domestic violence calls, etc. -- all situations that could potentially save a few folks.  If money weren't an object then, sure, the military equipment and stuff would probably be "worth it."  But since that isn't the reality, the question is whether that money/time/expense/cost/potential danger/negative impact is worth it compared to other reasonable alternatives.   

 
Settle down woz, it's just a ball bust on the other hot topic :)
I'm settled.  You keep overpaying for those gut shot straight draws without the odds to do so. It's fun.  Just like it's fun to sit and look at an MRAP that just sits and collects dust.  Or, better yet, let's call up Steven Segal and use a tank to execute a misdemeanor warrant for a crime against chickens.  http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/03/23/134803230/arizona-sheriff-uses-a-tank-to-arrest-cockfighting-suspect

 
Not really.  There's still a very reasonable and articulable argument to be made against such practice.*  But obviously in this case it worked out and we can all be thankful it did.  

* I think the best argument is the economic one - that spending municipal dollars on items and training that will likely never be necessary is -EV.  I view the Orlando situation like chasing a gutshot straight draw without pots odds.  It's great when it works (like the Orlando situation), but over time it's not the right decision
you're probably right, if the evidence supports the argument it's a strong argument. But does it?  Let's guess the equipment in Orlando cost $150k over the past 3 years.  Now, what if that equipment saved 10 lives?  or 1 life?  Where would you place the value of a human life?  I won't disagree that the money could be spent elsewhere with potentially more benefit but if you're starting the argument, it's worth assessing in more detail.

 
you're probably right, if the evidence supports the argument it's a strong argument. But does it?  Let's guess the equipment in Orlando cost $150k over the past 3 years.  Now, what if that equipment saved 10 lives?  or 1 life?  Where would you place the value of a human life?  I won't disagree that the money could be spent elsewhere with potentially more benefit but if you're starting the argument, it's worth assessing in more detail.
Completely my point.  I was initially responding to Icon's assertion that the Orlando incident puts to rest any reasonable arguments that military equipment for local police isn't necessary.  I don't think it does by any stretch. 

Obviously by my comments above you see where I stand on the issue but I'm certainly willing to admit that there are reasonable arguments in favor of getting the equipment.  This issue is a close one and not something that can be clarified or settled by one incident, however tragic.  As you indicated, whether a local police force should get such extreme equipment is a question that needs to be assessed and debated at great length.   

 
Wait.. these shooting sprees are a gutshot straight draw? If you talk to some of the simpletons over the the AR thread, you'd be convinced there is a mass shooting at every major intersection every night :lol:

 
Wait.. these shooting sprees are a gutshot straight draw? If you talk to some of the simpletons over the the AR thread, you'd be convinced there is a mass shooting at every major intersection every night :lol:
Right.  The same argument I'm making here would apply to the irrational gun-ban argument that, essentially, one really bad significant gun incident means that guns should be banned altogether.  Obviously that's not logical or rational.  Just like it's irrational/illogical to claim that all local police forces should obviously get military equipment simply because of one incident in Orlando where the equipment was significantly beneficial. 

This is why I'd call both hardcore pro-gun people and hardcore anti-gun people "simpletons". :P

 
Lets bring more criminals into this country while at the same time disarming the populace and police.

Great idea people, what could possibly go wrong?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top