Obama Banning Further Issue Of Some Surplus To Police Forces

[BehindBlueI's]

So "...(s)ome would argue that the militarization of our police is a huge loser. . . "? Perhaps you might think back to when that "militarization" started to take place? Say, when foreign drug gangs began to take over the drug trade here in the US? When they started using automatic weapons? When they didn't think twice about shooting it out with law enforcement? I wonder whether or not the "Continuum of Force" principle would apply here: when someone uses force against a citizen or a law enforcement officer, the assaultee is allowed to use one step up against the assaulter (as I remember it). If the bad guys are using rifles and automatic weapons, should not the police be allowed to go a step further and utilize heavy armor? That's basically what the militarization of the police is doing.

Indianapolis had an armored car in the 1930s. Yet somehow the MRAP and "militarization" debate continues despite 80 years of...what, exactly?

Look at pictures of cops in the 20s and 30s when the organized gang was on the rise and you're likely to see Tommy guns and a BAR or two. I'm still not sure why this is an issue all of a sudden. The Alex Jones mentality of the gov't is just about to get you as soon as you blink, I suppose.

 

[Drail]

This is just plain old "Look what I did!!" B.S. The most hilarious part is the restrictions on "ammunition over .50 caliber". Seeing as how ammunition UNDER .50 caliber is pretty much everything on the market it's a ludicrous statement but I guess we should be thrilled that the police aren't going to be getting anymore 20 and 30mm rounds. (you know' fer riots and such)

 

[CountryBoy19]

Sounds to me like it isn't a ban at all, it is pulling back the ISSUE of some military surplus items to LE departments from Federal Government.

IE, IMPD can't get a grenade launcher from the federal gov't re-utilization program, but they can still buy one privately through legal channels.

 

[rambone]

I am categorically against any mingling of the federal government with local police. That includes grants, equipment giveaways, and the like. All equipment should be locally funded (start to finish), without federal strings attached, and procured with the consent of the local population. Lastly, the equipment and staff should be devoted to ethically responsible purposes.

I am unlikely to object to an armored truck is used to end a hostage crisis. However, if a department has a history of performing 3:00 a.m. SWAT raids to look for contraband, I will oppose it at every turn.

 

[Gabriel]

I am categorically against any mingling of the federal government with local police. That includes grants, equipment giveaways, and the like. All equipment should be locally funded (start to finish), without federal strings attached, and procured with the consent of the local population. Lastly, the equipment and staff should be devoted to ethically responsible purposes.

I am unlikely to object to an armored truck is used to end a hostage crisis. However, if a department has a history of performing 3:00 a.m. SWAT raids to look for contraband, I will oppose it at every turn.

7:00 a.m. SWAT raids. We like to sleep in.

 

[bwframe]

So "...(s)ome would argue that the militarization of our police is a huge loser. . . "? Perhaps you might think back to when that "militarization" started to take place? Say, when foreign drug gangs began to take over the drug trade here in the US? When they started using automatic weapons? When they didn't think twice about shooting it out with law enforcement? I wonder whether or not the "Continuum of Force" principle would apply here: when someone uses force against a citizen or a law enforcement officer, the assaultee is allowed to use one step up against the assaulter (as I remember it). If the bad guys are using rifles and automatic weapons, should not the police be allowed to go a step further and utilize heavy armor? That's basically what the militarization of the police is doing.

It's not about the officer. The problem lies in those giving the officers the orders and the one's who give their orders. There is a real issue with trust and it's well founded. It started at the founding of this country and it still remains valid.

 

[renauldo]

I am categorically against any mingling of the federal government with local police. That includes grants, equipment giveaways, and the like. All equipment should be locally funded (start to finish), without federal strings attached, and procured with the consent of the local population. Lastly, the equipment and staff should be devoted to ethically responsible purposes.

I am unlikely to object to an armored truck is used to end a hostage crisis. However, if a department has a history of performing 3:00 a.m. SWAT raids to look for contraband, I will oppose it at every turn.

We paid for these vehicles and equipment via taxation. It's ours already. What you propose is more taxation "locally" to pay for the same vehicles and equipment again simply to make some point? Define contraband

 

[rambone]

We paid for these vehicles and equipment via taxation. It's ours already. What you propose is more taxation "locally" to pay for the same vehicles and equipment again simply to make some point?

Since the Federal government is $18,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, it is in no position to give away property for free. The MRAPs should be sold at auction to the highest bidder, and the funds used to pay down the debt. If local cops want them, they can bid on them. Same goes for private citizens and foreign governments.

There is nothing fiscally responsible about giving away equipment for free.

Define contraband

Pieces of private property that the government tells people that are not allowed to own. Some departments are heavily committed to enforcing prohibition laws.

 

[renauldo]

Since the Federal government is $18,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, it is in no position to give away property for free. The MRAPs should be sold at auction to the highest bidder, and the funds used to pay down the debt. If local cops want them, they can bid on them. Same goes for private citizens and foreign governments.


There is nothing fiscally responsible about giving away equipment for free.


Pieces of private property that the government tells people that are not allowed to own. Some departments are heavily committed to enforcing prohibition laws.

We should not condone sales of this kind of stuff to just anybody. What foreign government do you suggest? Most of them still owe us billions dating back to WWII. The others have governments of questionable stability. If local U.S. Police forces "buy" them our taxes just go into an endless loop and the government you so despise just profits all the more.


If it's illegal to own, it's illegal to own, and you should be prepared for the consequences. If Police raids worry you, fortify your position.

 

[Dosproduction]

I wish they would let everyone buy this stuff. Banning the cops aint doing nothing.

 

[Trigger Time]

I wish they would let everyone buy this stuff. Banning the cops aint doing nothing.

Well you can ...... As long as you pay Uncle Sam your permission tax and mail in your DNA.



yep I agree

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This may be the macro-conspiracy theorist in me, but I suspect that a large bit of the outcry against law enforcement "militarization" is motivated by forces which wish to reduce the potential obstacles of organized law enforcement as well as continuing to demoralize law enforcement personnel as much as possible and also creating a separation between "government enforcers" and the rest of the populace. Typical strategies used to foment a revolution. The "fun" part of this revolutionary strategy is that you can do various things to get the "government enforcers" - and the rest of the government - to help you out by either creating incidents which make them either look bad or take actions which can be made to look bad (Ferguson MO riots comes to mind), or by taking advantage of a police action with a tragic outcome to incite further anger and mistrust (e.g. New York City, Baltimore). Those crying out against - of all things - riot gear being handed down to local law enforcement should harken back to the 1800s when police would shoot rioters dead instead of enduring thrown stones, molotov cocktails, and human waste behind such gear. I suspect most of us don't want to go back to a situation where the only means we have to defend against rioters is deadly force.

 

[XMil]

Automatic weapons are available for sale to civilians, albeit horrifically expensive

That is not an entirely accurate statement if we are talking about "equality". Specifically, new automatic weapons are not available to the public.

 

[deal me in]

This may be the macro-conspiracy theorist in me, but I suspect that a large bit of the outcry against law enforcement "militarization" is motivated by forces which wish to reduce the potential obstacles of organized law enforcement as well as continuing to demoralize law enforcement personnel as much as possible and also creating a separation between "government enforcers" and the rest of the populace. Typical strategies used to foment a revolution. The "fun" part of this revolutionary strategy is that you can do various things to get the "government enforcers" - and the rest of the government - to help you out by either creating incidents which make them either look bad or take actions which can be made to look bad (Ferguson MO riots comes to mind), or by taking advantage of a police action with a tragic outcome to incite further anger and mistrust (e.g. New York City, Baltimore). Those crying out against - of all things - riot gear being handed down to local law enforcement should harken back to the 1800s when police would shoot rioters dead instead of enduring thrown stones, molotov cocktails, and human waste behind such gear. I suspect most of us don't want to go back to a situation where the only means we have to defend against rioters is deadly force.

The outcry is due to the police abuses and corruption we see on a regular basis. I'm sure that pointing out these abuses tends to delegitimize and demoralize police officers, but that's on them. It's like blaming Fox News for demoralizing Obama. Personally, as long as police officers are eager to prosecute the war on drugs and all that entails, I'm all for driving a wedge between them and the people. I was watching one of the "cops" type shoes today and I saw a young black male get busted in a sting for selling 90 loratab pills in Florida. Mandatory minimum 25 years. I know it wasn't the cops who created the law, but they sure are eager to enforce it. I couldn't live with myself if I sent a kid away for 25 years for selling 90 pain relieving pills. I think you have to be a socio-path to enjoy it. So ya, not a fan of the popo.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Maybe if you had to clean up the dead bodies a few times - dead because of drug overdoses; drunk driving; just plain stupidity combined with the influence of pharmaceuticals, you might have a bit more sympathy for folks just doing their jobs. With over a million cops & corrections officers in the country, you can certainly find abuses, but if they're "widespread" it's because the country is "widespread" and there's a lot of crime of various sorts going on that you never see or hear about unless you're in Chicago or Indy and get to see your neighbor's kid gunned down in a drive-by shooting (usually over drugs by-the-way) or get broadsided or rear-ended by a drunk/drugged driver (there's those drugs again.)

 

[deal me in]

Maybe if you had to clean up the dead bodies a few times - dead because of drug overdoses; drunk driving; just plain stupidity combined with the influence of pharmaceuticals, you might have a bit more sympathy for folks just doing their jobs. With over a million cops & corrections officers in the country, you can certainly find abuses, but if they're "widespread" it's because the country is "widespread" and there's a lot of crime of various sorts going on that you never see or hear about unless you're in Chicago or Indy and get to see your neighbor's kid gunned down in a drive-by shooting (usually over drugs by-the-way) or get broadsided or rear-ended by a drunk/drugged driver (there's those drugs again.)

Don't patronize me. I know how dangerous irresponsible drug use can be. Maybe if you had to clean up the bodies at sandy hook you'd be in favor of banning guns. The drug war has been going on my entire life (40+ years) and drugs are easily available in every part of the country. It's had no affect on availability. All its done is create the largest prison industrial complex in history. I understand that I have to pay for it, but I don't have to like it. Finally, based on what I've seen and experienced, police abuse is both widespread and systemic.

 

[renauldo]

Don't patronize me. I know how dangerous irresponsible drug use can be. Maybe if you had to clean up the bodies at sandy hook you'd be in favor of banning guns. The drug war has been going on my entire life (40+ years) and drugs are easily available in every part of the country. It's had no affect on availability. All its done is create the largest prison industrial complex in history. I understand that I have to pay for it, but I don't have to like it. Finally, based on what I've seen and experienced, police abuse is both widespread and systemic.

Well I'm 65+ years and based on your statements, Mr. Potatoe head makes more sense than you. Druggies are lucky to be institutionalized. The Chinese just rounded up dealers and users when drugs got out of control and shot them in the head. Police do what they gotta do. They are gonna need our support, not constant criticism and rebukes. Try a society with out them, or the pansies you want them to be..

 

[deal me in]

Well I'm 65+ years and based on your statements, Mr. Potatoe head makes more sense than you. Druggies are lucky to be institutionalized. The Chinese just rounded up dealers and users when drugs got out of control and shot them in the head. Police do what they gotta do. They are gonna need our support, not constant criticism and rebukes. Try a society with out them, or the pansies you want them to be..

I should be thankful that our cops don't just execute druggies like in China? Apparently age and wisdom aren't correlated after all. Do you people think about what you are typing at all or is it just stream of consciousness?

 

[renauldo]

I should be thankful that our cops don't just execute druggies like in China? Apparently age and wisdom aren't correlated after all. Do you people think about what you are typing at all or is it just stream of consciousness?

Us "old guys" just correlate our retirements on pensions and SS (which you will never see) and us old people are still conscious enough to know whats right from whats wrong. Excuse me now, it's time for my last fart of the day, warm milk and off to bed.

 

[ModernGunner]

Well, I'm vehemently against taking such gear and equipment from PD's. The simple fact that the Liar-In-Chief is in favor of it is sufficient reason for any sensible person to be against it. That moron has yet to do anything actually beneficial for the American citizenry.

In previewing the president's trip, the White House said that effective immediately, the federal government will no longer fund... firearms or ammunition of .50-caliber or higher, grenade launchers, bayonets...

Well, clearly the Moron-In-Chief is even dumber than typically given credit for.

BTW, a 12 ga. shotgun with slugs IS "firearms or ammunition of .50-caliber or higher".

Grenade launchers disperse smoke and 'tear gas' grenades.

Bayonets? C'mon.

This is just the Liar-In-Chief, yet again, doing whatever he can to disrupt and subvert American society to the best of his ability. His hatred for Americans and its society is palpable and does not go unnoticed by those who choose not to ignore it.

Of course, SOME will agree with it and be in favor of it. But, one must be suspicious of their motive(s) in doing so.