Congressman wants to curb the Military Surplus program with police agencies. - Polidicks

How often do you seriously even see MRAPs deployed in public? Not very often. A riot broke out, and the police needed to use everything that they saw necessary to protect themselves and maintain order. What is the functional difference between a SWAT van and an MRAP anyway other than aesthetics? They are both armored vehicles, and are used in the exact same way. It's not like the police are driving MRAPs around every single day in small town USA to flex their militaristic power-muscles, these weapons and vehicles are usually being put to use where they are needed, and nothing more. That being said, I think that some of the police response in Ferguson was very unwarrented, but it is not related to the gear that the police have and are using. The way they prohibited the press from covering the events is disgusting, and it may actually stem from the chief of police himself. I recall seeing that the police chief went to Israel to study counter-terrorism tactics. I'm not sure how legitimate that is, but it might explain why his response to this was so "militaristic", especially his handling of the press. Then again, it might also be a problem with the individual cops themselves. There is too much misinformation, and rash legislature such as the kind that this congressman is proposing must be carefully considered and planned. We need to wait to pass judgement on stuff like this until we can be certain of what actually happened in Ferguson. Wait for the police investigation of the shooting to be over, and wait for statements to come out.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45707465]"Let's buy woodland camo gear for an urban environment!" It's like the police are just throwing money into whatever without a single care.[/QUOTE] the only purpose of camo is to break up the wearer's outline. it isn't meant to turn you invisible. if that was the idea stuff like dazzle camo wouldn't exist

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;45709936]Jesus Christ people, you don't deploy police men around in automatic m4's, guardian armor, helmets and m21 snipers when there's a riot or a disturb. Brazil has to deal with pseudo guerrillas who control entire neighborhoods and are equipped with AK's, G3's and UZIs which is completely different from what's happening in Ferguson. [B] Yes, you behave depending on the gear you have[/B]. Call me bollocks, but just search it anywhere, when you're holding a baton or a taser your mindset is totally different than when welding a fully automatic M4 while in military-grade equipment. The bigger the thing you're holding the higher the testosterone levels are. [url]http://faculty.knox.edu/fmcandre/guns-testo-aggress.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] m4's aren't automatic, every country has riot armor and marksman rifles. Try again.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;45712093]m4's aren't automatic, every country has riot armor and marksman rifles. Try again.[/QUOTE] M4s [B]are [/B]fully automatic. AR-15s are usually not. Does it matter in the hands of someone who has more than an hour of range-time? No. Putting "fully automatic" in front of "M4" is like saying "electric laptop". It's a scare tactic that ALL US news outlets use [B]incessantly[/B]. Military-grade is another retarded buzzword that doesn't mean anything. Details aren't always unimportant.

Hey is this is going to be a thing shove some of that curbed surplus the way of the UK please. I want more of my shitty UCP, it's like the guilty camouflage, you shouldn't like it but I just do.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45707465]"Let's buy woodland camo gear for an urban environment!" It's like the police are just throwing money into whatever without a single care.[/QUOTE] They're trying to look like Marines. Police don't wear uniforms to blend in, especially not black gear. They wear it to be recognizable, and I imagine the men in this unit appreciate being able to tell at a glance whether they're looking at a baddie, a different district's police unit, or a comrade.

In case anyone doesn't know, all this will do is make departments have to pay money for the gear instead. Not actually deny them access to it. If you're trying to reduce the "militarization" of the US's police forces, removing a cost-cutting program isn't the place to start. Removing the initative will actually have a negative impact on the lesser funded forces across the US and end up with situations like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout]Hollywood's 1997 shootout.[/url] As it is right now, another incident like that can't happen. If it does, it'l be because of a billion dollar organization using PMC-grade equipment in which case they'll need the goddamned military to stop. This Congressman is just picking at low hanging fruit in the public eye in order to garner votes, nothing more. [B]Edit:[/B] Now pardon me whilst I go play Payday 2.

Jesus this is fucking stupid. Look up the program. They give law enforcement agencies M16's and 1911's that are likely older than half their officers. Cry me a river. I don't think the program even offers vehicles anymore. The mrap would likely have been purchased entirely without the use of this program.

[QUOTE=GunFox;45713536]Jesus this is fucking stupid. Look up the program. They give law enforcement agencies M16's and 1911's that are likely older than half their officers. Cry me a river. I don't think the program even offers vehicles anymore. The mrap would likely have been purchased entirely without the use of this program.[/QUOTE]Actually, I think a local jurisdiction here got one just in the last three or four months. Not like its a big deal though, it was practically free and most people aren't so stupid as to think they're going to roll it out and start running over the community.

I think cops should at least get M4s. I mean, there's been enough scenarios where LEO can't effectively respond to a situation because they don't have the range or penetration.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;45711520]The soldiers in Paris and airports are...soldiers. And the FAMASs aren't loaded. [editline]16th August 2014[/editline] And really to even compare English firearms distribution in police agencies to US distribution is silly. Most of your list is conveniently selective, especially given the scarcity of actual Western examples.[/QUOTE] I've been to a lot of countries and this is the case everywhere. Norway, Sweden, Poland, Germany (well ze Germans are actually a lot like the US), Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Finland, all the same shit. I don't feel like trudging through my memory to bring up more examples. Fuck in Hungary all the museum guards have pistols on them... When's the last time you saw that. Poland private shopping mall security wears military grade tactical vests... (No guns obv, but muh militarization).

[QUOTE=Mbbird;45711520]The soldiers in Paris and airports are...soldiers.[B] And the FAMASs aren't loaded.[/B] [editline]16th August 2014[/editline] And really to even compare English firearms distribution in police agencies to US distribution is silly. Most of your list is conveniently selective, especially given the scarcity of actual Western examples.[/QUOTE] if that was true then why carry them at all. if people like you know they weren't loaded, surely some criminal/terrorist group would know, meaning that they would be completely fucking pointless.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;45714633]if that was true then why carry them at all. if people like you know they weren't loaded, surely some criminal/terrorist group would know, meaning that they would be completely fucking pointless.[/QUOTE] To make people feel safe, or conversely intimidated. US did the same thing on pentagon demonstrations, deployed nat guard with unloaded M14s. "Armed labor" in the 1950s in Czechoslovakia was the same, unloaded mausers. The sight of a gun intimidates people.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45714937]Then they can use an AR-15, they don't need the burst fire capabilities of an M4.[/QUOTE]Why?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45714954]Because burst fire is only good for suppression. Suppression is great.. In a war zone.. Where collateral damage is virtually a non issue. That's not the case with the police.[/QUOTE] say the FBI or some local SWAT team was executing a raid on a dangerous criminal or criminals, do you think suppression might be useful in that kind of situation, especially if they're being fired upon themselves?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45714954]Because burst fire is only good for suppression. Suppression is great.. In a war zone.. Where collateral damage is virtually a non issue. That's not the case with the police.[/QUOTE]Police have to deal with situations where suppression is necessary. And even if somehow they never did, big deal. [editline]17th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;45714954]Besides, they cant even be trusted with semi-auto's half the time, they certainly shouldn't fuck around with burst/full auto. Remember this:[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/[/URL][/QUOTE]So the police used their semi-automatic, standard issue side arms to takedown an already known to be dangerous individual in the way they are supposed to. Here's how it works: If someone presents themself as an immediate threat, they are supposed to fire until they are certain they no longer pose a threat, which means firing several rounds. Sometimes they miss, and sometimes there is over-penetration, things which can injure civilians near by. What is your proposed alternative to this situation? You continue to make it very apparent you literally have no clue how the police actually operate. This is entry level crap.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715001]The fbi and swat are different cases, considering swat mostly uses compact weaponry like the mp5, usually loaded with hollow points, which are usually a 115 grn projectile that travels around 1240 ft/second , the collateral damage is fairly small. On the other hand, an m4/AR-15 fires a 5.56 projectile, which while only weighing in at 63grn, is also a fmj, and usually would contain a steel or tungsten armor penetrator, and also travels at around 3070 ft/s; thus "oops we missed" with an mp5 on full auto is bad, but not as bad as "oop, i missed" with a round that can punch through several walls while still maintaining lethal velocities, and maintaining enough mass to inflict fairly heavy damage.[/QUOTE] You do know SWAT are just police with a 120 hour course annually to increase their operational capacity? They also use M4s for standoff weapons when aiming at a building with a dangerous person in it, the person pops out and the guy responds with a quick burst or two at the spot he was in, keeps their head down and the approach clear.

In these situations, they have to be as quick as possible, they do not get the luxury of making sure every shot is perfectly sighted. I mean, what, were these two supposed to mingle with the fucking community around them while someone who had just a moment before killed a man waved a gun around? Should they have walked up with a couple'a brewskis maybe, offered him one? While they're [I]walking they're beat[/I], with the people, in the community. Hey, maybe they should've tased him in the leg, you know?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715013]If overpenetration is a problem then they really shouldn't be using 5.56, given the fact that it's specifically designed not to fragment. Don't make excuses for them, they wounded 9 innocent people to kill one "bad guy" that's fucking pathetic, and in any other country that'd be absolutely inexcusable. But since it's the US it's totally fine.[/QUOTE] They definitely make frangibles in 5.56 NATO. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715001]The fbi and swat are different cases, considering swat mostly uses compact weaponry like the mp5, usually loaded with hollow points, which are usually a 115 grn projectile that travels around 1240 ft/second , the collateral damage is fairly small. On the other hand, an m4/AR-15 fires a 5.56 projectile, which while only weighing in at 63grn, is also a fmj, and usually would contain a steel or tungsten armor penetrator, and also travels at around 3070 ft/s; thus "oops we missed" with an mp5 on full auto is bad, but not as bad as "oop, i missed" with a round that can punch through several walls while still maintaining lethal velocities, and maintaining enough mass to inflict fairly heavy damage.[/QUOTE]So did you just go google this information hoping to look smart? Hoping if you throw out enough information, people will go "Well, I don't understand it, so he must be right!"

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715042]If you use the frangible rounds then you lose the armor piercing qualities of the round, which is part of the justification the police use for having rifles chambered in 5.56 in the first place.[/QUOTE] Actually without plates, that frangible round will penetrate due to the impact area being compact(thus not catching the round) and having the velocity, it may do less damage on the other side, but I don't doubt that it would still be lethal. If they were wearing plates, the round would be unlikely to penetrate in the first place. The basic vest only is useful against lower velocity rounds due to the ability to catch the round, high velocity rounds goes to quickly for the fibers to catch it.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715025]Stop making excuses for them. It's a crowded environment, with hundreds of innocent people around them, "making sure the shots are sighted" is their only god damned job if they're shooting someone.[/QUOTE]You literally haven't got a goddamned clue. Jesus christ, you are literally as bad as the "MAYB DEY SHUD A SHOT HIM IN DA LEG WITH PEPPER SPRAY FROM 35 FEET!" people who crop up in every thread where the police have to take down a dangerous individual. And I mean literally literally, not hyperbolically. I am going to save these posts of yours and have them ready in the future any time you try to post about the police just so everyone else can see how clueless you truly are. Fuck's sake.

[QUOTE=counterpo0;45711414]I don't mind the police having upgraded body armor and armored vehicles. Since they already have those and are just upgrading their old stuff to the newer, better stuff. I think whats really pissing people off ( me included) is police departments wearing camo. I mean get a load of these fucks [IMG]http://coloneldespard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/8060903-87.jpg[/IMG] What ever happened to black uniforms. Something we all know that means POLICE and not the same uniform we see our soldiers in. If you break down that image, all they have is shotguns, body armor ( which they always had) and a grenade launcher with tear gas, or smoke.[/QUOTE] They want to play army with out actually being in the army

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715063]The whole reason the police started carrying rifles in 5.56 was because of the north hollywood shootout, they don't typically have the frangible core rounds out of dear that they're going to run into that 1 in a million dude wearing type 3+ armor.[/QUOTE] They are much more likely to run into a guy wearing IIIa armor(what the north hollywood guys were wearing the equivalent of, no plates), which a 5.56/.223 goes through no issue.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715076]So let me spell this out for you, since you can't read. NO OTHER COUNTRY THAT BOTHERS TO CALL ITSELF CIVILIZED WOULD ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, but since it's America, we make a fuckton of excuses about "oh heat of the moment, oh blah blah". You know what, we don't even let our military get away with that excuse. I've seen several marines locked up because they accidentally shot someone in the heat of a firefight. BUT SOMEHOW MAGICALLY BEING A COP MAKES IT OK, RIGHT? No, you're fucking clueless. [editline]17th August 2014[/editline] Standard 5.56 would yes, the frangible loads typically don't have a penetrator in them.[/QUOTE] They were wearing ARAMID ARMOR, which is kevlar-like armors mind you, no plates involved they couldn't take them down due to it being anti-pistol and magnum armor, which is all the police had at the time. Frangible loads would still penetrate.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45714937]Then they can use an AR-15, they don't need the burst fire capabilities of an M4.[/QUOTE] It's called a selector switch

Why has this argument turned from "AR-15s (as opposed to M4s) are fine for LEOs" to "LEOs shouldn't be using AR-15s/M4s at all"?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715076]So let me spell this out for you, since you can't read. NO OTHER COUNTRY THAT BOTHERS TO CALL ITSELF CIVILIZED WOULD ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, but since it's America, we make a fuckton of excuses about "oh heat of the moment, oh blah blah". You know what, we don't even let our military get away with that excuse. I've seen several marines locked up because they accidentally shot someone in the heat of a firefight. BUT SOMEHOW MAGICALLY BEING A COP MAKES IT OK, RIGHT? No, you're fucking clueless. Look at any other country on the planet, shooting 9 INNOCENT FUCKING PEOPLE, would get you fired and locked away for years; but in America some nice paid administrative leave, and a whole "oh it was the heat of the moment" story, and everyone goes about their business. [/QUOTE]The situation they were in? Ohh I bet they would have anywhere else unless it could be demonstrated they were being reckless or malicious which really, really does not seem to be the case. They try to prevent these things despite what you seem to think, but they do not get the benefit of hesitation. Even in the military they will go "Was it unavoidable under the circumstances?" Although the military usually goes in to situations better prepared and fighting on different circumstances. They usually aren't just walking up to someone, equipped only with a sidearm and maybe a stab vest, and trying to question or arrest them when that person pulls out a gun after having already killed another man. But you're content to act like they were trying to target civilians on some wild and reckless thrill, with no regard for anyone's safety. [editline]17th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715103]By the way, go ahead and google "xcountry police accidentally shoot", on every other european country you'll see one relevant result; on the US the entire first page is full of results. "accidents" are un-fucking-acceptable. Hell, even Australia, who's police are as armed as our police are, has fewer results. They might be human, but accidents are unacceptable, especially with since "accidents" with a firearm tend to be life altering. But yea, keep spouting bullshit, we all really enjoy it.[/QUOTE]Different populations, different environments, different just about everything except being people in a first world country. That's such a flimsy argument.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715136]They crafted a metal trauma plate for their chest, I can't find any mention of them having side or rear trauma plates. One of them did anyway. [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout[/URL][/QUOTE] Ahh, I missed that part, but hey swapping magazines isn't too difficult.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45715151] When do we finally stop accepting the excuse of "oops". Doctors don't get to say "oops" if they cut off the wrong hand, a cop shouldn't get an "oops" if they shoot the wrong god damned person. [/QUOTE] That analogy is fucking terrible and not even close to what its like. When you fire a gun, you can't control where its going to land after firing. No one can control that, the best you can do is aim it and pull the trigger to the best of your ability. You sit there talking about gun-specs and shit but you sound like someone just quipping website sources and articles. You sound like a douche bag who theoretically how guns work but has never actually fired or taken apart one. And yes, I'm going to call you out if you're just gonna be an asshole and insult others. I can agree that the training needs to be much better, but its not always about money, sometimes it is about time and a lack of bodies. And still other times its because of how widespread everything is.