America's police are looking more and more like the military; program transfers military-grade weapo - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Octavius;42455669] I don't have much of a problem with it so long as it is controlled at some higher level not totally local level and so long as it won't be carrying around a gun. I can understand the need for it, just felt something might be more appropriate for the situation, but I do completely understand the use and need of some armored transport and this MRAP fits the place.[/QUOTE] Yes, the crew served mounted weapons are removed prior to transfer. The police have no need for them and belt fed weapons are really more of a liability for law enforcement. As far as oversight goes, it is really pointless. Law enforcement can get this level of equipment one way or another, it is simply a matter of funding. Rather than letting old hardware rot in a storage facility, the federal military hands it over to local law enforcement for their use. Federal oversight would be seen as intrusive and costly for a program that is all about saving money overall. Law enforcement has been getting helicopters this way for a long time now.

When your power tripping local cop is better equipped than the average soldier in Afghanistan there's a problem. I live in a fairly low crime neighborhood and I see fresh faced kids walking around decked out in Kevlar and tricked out M4s.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42455329]Course, no one wants to admit that cops need body armor even though civilians can get their hands on Semi-Automatic rifles that fire standard intermediate cartridges that the military also uses rather easily. Its not like that's a thing at all. Because that totally doesn't happen, ever.[/QUOTE] A vest under the uniform is fine. I know plenty of cops who do that. And I have no problem with police keeping a rifle in the car, as shotguns are outdated and difficult against armored enemies. But full riot gear, face concealment, helmets, etc along with an assault rifle in a hands for basic patrol, though, is excessive militarization IMO. The problem is the old adage- when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Police shouldn't need to be doing traffic stops with assault rifles and it sets a very bad precedent. I also must point out that nothing available to criminals today is more dangerous or more lethal than what was available eighty years ago. In 1933 you could buy a full-auto Thompson submachine gun with a 50-round drum magazine through mail order. Nowadays not only do criminals have to jump through more hoops to get weapons, but they also can't get full-auto weapons at all and need to take time and resources to procure them specifically or to perform the modification themselves. This isn't a reaction to criminals up-gunning, it's a reaction to police fatalities and easier availability of body armor to both sides. I think there's a subtle but important distinction.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42456201]A vest under the uniform is fine. I know plenty of cops who do that. And I have no problem with police keeping a rifle in the car, as shotguns are outdated and difficult against armored enemies. But full riot gear, face concealment, helmets, etc along with an assault rifle in a hands for basic patrol, though, is excessive militarization IMO. The problem is the old adage- when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Police shouldn't need to be doing traffic stops with assault rifles and it sets a very bad precedent. I also must point out that nothing available to criminals today is more dangerous or more lethal than what was available eighty years ago. In 1933 you could buy a full-auto Thompson submachine gun with a 50-round drum magazine through mail order. Nowadays not only do criminals have to jump through more hoops to get weapons, but they also can't get full-auto weapons at all and need to take time and resources to procure them specifically or to perform the modification themselves. This isn't a reaction to criminals up-gunning, it's a reaction to police fatalities and easier availability of body armor to both sides. I think there's a subtle but important distinction.[/QUOTE] Indeed, a lot of this is to avoid the death of comrades and friends.

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;42455909]I own a Nagant 91/30 and a Remington 870. I'm pretty sure a shit-ton of cops with glocks and AR-15's could down me right quick.[/QUOTE] Because that's the best hardware people could ever get before deciding to gun down police. Americans collect weapons and military paraphernalia for a hobby. If I were a cop, I wouldn't mind being over-prepared.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42455314]I'm fine with SWAT and crisis response teams having body armor and assault rifles. Their job is to deal with high-danger situations, where active shooters may be involved, and they need the tools to do it. It's when the regular police start arming [i]and behaving[/i] like SWAT during normal day-to-day policework that there is cause for concern.[/QUOTE] Keep in mind that in a lot of places regular cops and CR and swat units often overlap. The thing is though, most of the gear is in storage until it is needed. In part because you really don't want to wear body armour when your'e on a patrol during a twelve hour shift. But if you need a response it's best to gear up somewhat.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42455145][IMG]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/4/1380897384815/US-Paramilitary-police-sw-002.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] i'm pretty sure soldiers in a lot of nations have less gear than these cops lol.

US congress does want more tanks, maybe they'll get some of the left over M1A1 tanks? :v

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42455564]Yeah, 4 Agencies, hundreds of agents and equipment, as well as martial law for a 19 year old. Great precedent.[/QUOTE] Well they needed the martial law to make sure the well rehearsed actors could preform without interruption

[QUOTE=tr00per7;42455199]I was hoping they would be equipped with roman legionnaire stuff like Emperor Scorpius's icon.[/QUOTE] hail caesar.

Cops in Mexico sometimes ride with .50s on their trucks. [editline]8th October 2013[/editline] But, thats mexico.

Police should have access to the same firepower that criminals have + a bit extra to put them at an advantage. I can go out and buy an AR-15 right now with nothing more than my Driver's license. Hand Guns are everywhere in the criminal underworld because of how easy they are to conceal, hence why they're used in 98% of the crimes Also, I love photos showing a massive swarm of police decked out in every bit of tactical gear they could find serving a warrant as if that's how they're always served. 99% of warrants that are served are served by a regular police officer, usually with one other officer, but sometimes alone. It's dangerous and stupid, but large cities have something like 100,000+ warrants and it's just not possible or feasible to use a SWAT unit in all of them

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42456448]i'm pretty sure soldiers in a lot of nations have less gear than these cops lol.[/QUOTE] Special responses forces usually have similar amounts of gear. The main differences are in the gear of riot police (which varies a lot) and standard beat cops which ranges from relatively well decked out to not even carrying firearms.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_shootings_of_Oakland_police_officers]It's still pretty easy[/url] for SWAT officers to get killed even with all that equipment.

You guys should read The Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko, pretty scary stuff

[QUOTE=GunFox;42455932]As far as oversight goes, it is really pointless. Law enforcement can get this level of equipment one way or another, it is simply a matter of funding. Rather than letting old hardware rot in a storage facility, the federal military hands it over to local law enforcement for their use. Federal oversight would be seen as intrusive and costly for a program that is all about saving money overall.[/QUOTE] I don't mean federal oversight at all, I just mean I prefer that it be distributed to the count, as it was as in this case, than to a (super) local police force. Federal oversight of the usage of the vehicles would be completely uselss and a waste of money which, as you stated, is completely counterproductive.

History has shown that when a nation is very patriotic and has an excessive militarization of police and massive military focus in general it's almost never a good thing.

I don't see a huge problem with this. Might just be me but I don't care if they have stuff like this laying around somewhere in case they need it, it's better than it all just getting scrapped or whatever once it has run it's "Shelf life" in the military or whatever. It's not like they're doing traffic stops with an APC and tear gas grenades with 5 men holding rifles or something, really doesn't seem like a big deal to just have the stuff as a precaution.

[QUOTE=Octavius;42457324]I don't mean federal oversight at all, I just mean I prefer that it be distributed to the count, as it was as in this case, than to a (super) local police force. Federal oversight of the usage of the vehicles would be completely uselss and a waste of money which, as you stated, is completely counterproductive.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Giving things to the county and giving things to the Sheriff's department are synonymous. I genuinely don't understand what you are suggesting.

[QUOTE][B]Tanks[/B], grenade launchers, armored vehicles, and assault rifles are just a few of the items that have been transferred from military control to municipal police forces. [/QUOTE] Wow, tanks? Why would the Police need tanks? I don't know about you guys but I don't think the police need all these military vehicles and gear.

I'd take the main gun off of a tank and roll it around on special occasions if I could. Orrrrr turn it into a 120mm pneumatic tshirt cannon. For special occasions.

Naturally it has to be the Guardian reporting this, since American-based media is apparently prohibited from commenting on the post 9/11 police/surveillance state.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;42458000]Naturally it has to be the Guardian reporting this, since American-based media is apparently prohibited from commenting on the post 9/11 police/surveillance state.[/QUOTE] Did you just gloss over where it's the American version of the Guardian and an American wrote the article and the whole thing is in first-person or did you just not read the article

[QUOTE=SirDavid255;42457909]Wow, tanks? Why would the Police need tanks? I don't know about you guys but I don't think the police need all these military vehicles and gear.[/QUOTE] What is a tank beyond a heavily armored vehicle with a few machine guns and a cannon? Really they probably have the main gun removed if it is an actual tank not just something like the Bradley.

[QUOTE=SirDavid255;42457909]Wow, tanks? Why would the Police need tanks? I don't know about you guys but I don't think the police need all these military vehicles and gear.[/QUOTE] They don't get tanks. The article says all kinds of bullshit. The 1033 program has very specific restrictions. For instance it discusses things like grenade launchers being distributed, but only THREE small arms are approved for distribution: [url]https://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/rtd03/leso/weapons.shtml#updates[/url] The M-16 rifle, The M-14, and the M1911. [quote]Reminders: Requests for weapons not available through the program (M-4 Rifles, M-21 Sniper Rifles, etc.) will be discarded. A response will not be sent to the LEA. LEAs are responsible for acquiring magazines/clips and slings to use with wea- pons acquired through the 1033 Program. Magazines/Clips and slings are not issued with the weapons.[/quote] You don't even get magazines with the rifles. Note that grenade launchers and M4 rifles are NOT ON THE LIST. Tactical vehicles that you can obtain are not listed, but tend to be MRAP vehicles like bearcats now. Older ones obtained through the program, and this is likely where the "tank" name comes from were M113 armored personnel carriers. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113[/url] They are tracked vehicles, but they are nothing even remotely close to a tank. They are armored about the same as the vehicles being distributed now, if perhaps slightly worse, the just happen to have tracks instead of tires due to the requirements placed on APC's when this thing was designed in the 1960's.

[QUOTE=GunFox;42457859]I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Giving things to the county and giving things to the Sheriff's department are synonymous. I genuinely don't understand what you are suggesting.[/QUOTE] What I meant is giving it to the Sheriff or County as in this article is all good, but just nothing completely unneeded given to them or supplies such as these MRAPs being given to a more local police group than the county like a city or district.

[QUOTE=SirDavid255;42457909]Wow, tanks? Why would the Police need tanks? I don't know about you guys but I don't think the police need all these military vehicles and gear.[/QUOTE] I doubt they were "tanks"... Most likely it was just an armored vehicle or an APC. It's like how reporters call every rifle an AK47 or more recently "bushmaster AR-15s" Edit: aw ninja'd

So they want me to tell that America is a police state. Color me surprised!!!!!! stupid stuff

[QUOTE=Octavius;42458272]What I meant is giving it to the Sheriff or County as in this article is all good, but just nothing completely unneeded given to them or supplies such as these MRAPs being given to a more local police group than the county like a city or district.[/QUOTE] Sheriff's departments are usually the smaller one when compared to city cops. City police have a much higher density of tax payers to fund them and also require more police. County departments (sheriffs) are usually poorly funded because their jurisdictions mostly fall into rural areas with low population densities (although they do maintain jurisdiction in cities that fall into the county, there is little reason for them to patrol the cities due to the presence of city police.) City police, as a result of superior funding, are often also better trained and have more stringent job requirements than their deputy counterparts. (Though not always) The only law enforcement agencies that might be more local than sheriff's deputies are University police. That said, the University police are often actually relatively well funded and are functionally identical to city police, but focus on campus calls.

While I don't have much of a problem with this, why not give they left over personnel carriers to the national guard? This would probably stop the people from bitching since your average American doesn't know much about the national guard. You could even have them lend them to SWAT during operations. Thing is, its actually legal in some states to purchase tanks and the like as a civilian. The gun is a separate topic entirely but whats to stop you from just mounting an assault rifle on the turret. I mean stuff like the killdozer has happened and people are upset that the police need more? [video=youtube;PZbG9i1oGPA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbG9i1oGPA[/video]