Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

johnn48 t1_j6bd1x1 wrote

Despite how much is spent on the equipment, I contend it changes the perception of both the Police and the Public. We’ve seen National Guard troops in riot areas with less military equipment than the Police. Why does a SWAT team need a Lenco Bear Cat or a $650,000 military tank-like truck to transport their SWAT team to hostile situations. It changes the Public perception of the Police to an occupation force.


commissar0617 t1_j6bky97 wrote

because of things like the LA bank robbery and other incidents that police get shot at. because we have posse commitatus and most of the rest of the world does not. the MRAPs are also fairly useful in disaster situations thanks to fording and relative offroad ability.

and it's not like we're the only ones whose police have armored vehicles. hell, germany still uses water cannons in riot control.


johnn48 t1_j6bro06 wrote

The LA Bank robbery was more a matter of no body armor and assault weapons. How many incidents have justified an assault vehicle? Water cannons seem less deadly than armed Police clearing streets. My point you can probably name less than 10 instances where a SWAT assault vehicle was justified. However even less when heavily armored and armed Police made a difference. Contrast those instances when National Guard were present and their gear.


commissar0617 t1_j6bvyu6 wrote

Apples and oranges. You're soley focusing on riots. In a riot situation, an armored vehicle provides an anchor for a line, a command post with an elevated view, plus carry, and delpoy tear gas if needed, in the form of a mobile, protected position.

Plus, the national guard does utilize humvee, trucks, mraps etc on riot control duties. Plus they do go armed with rifles if not in a skirmish line.


johnn48 t1_j6bxo9z wrote

Of course I’m focused on riots, do you need an armored vehicle for traffic stops? I didn’t imply that the National Guard wasn’t armed or used military equipment. I was saying that their personal were less heavily armored and armed than some of our local police. The militarization of the police is that they get excess military equipment at rock bottom prices, so like my wife they see a sale, they go shopping no matter if they need it, “Look Dear I saved $450,000”.


commissar0617 t1_j6dk3aa wrote

Again. Other countries don't have posse commitatus, so tactical and riot situations may be handled by the military. They wear riot gear during crowd control because gee, people often throw things during a riot.

Baltimore actually had to get better gear and less lethal equipment for riot control a few years ago because many officers were injured with their old equipment.


johnn48 t1_j6dyuab wrote

You’ve probably wondered why I keep referring to the National Guard. You do realize that National Guard are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act because they are not Federal. Because they’ve been deployed overseas, they have military equipment. I’ve no objection to large metropolitan cities making use of the excess military equipment. It’s when podunk USA finds the need to militarize their Police because they got a good deal on excess equipment.