Limelight Forums

Police have been in the news a lot lately, which is why I would like to bring up the topic of police accountability as well as police militarization. Some videos on the subject:





I personally am against police militarization, as police departments are being given weapons of war such as MRAPs even though they serve no purpose in protecting the citizenry. However they are used in situations such as protest response as well as in the perpetuation of the unjust war on drugs. It seems that in recent times police have adopted an approach to policing that creates a disconnect between the police and the community that they're supposed to be serving and erodes public trust.

On the topic of police accountability I think we have seen many cases where police used force or did other things that were unjustified yet officers are not charged, most times put on paid administrative leave. Sometimes officers just resign to avoid charges. Things like these are what causes the public to lose faith in law enforcement.

It is my opinion that due to many factors, those who are distrustful of law enforcement are justified in their beliefs.
What do you guys think?

There's the good and the bad in everything. You can hate the police or you can like them.


I like them, and I support militarization of our police force in the US. Judge me as you will but if it keeps them alive with how crime is today then by all means take an MRAP and NVGs any day. People are constantly targeting officers and trying to kill them, in my opinion more than ever do to the actions of not so good officers. Safety is the most important thing in that line of work just as much as keeping the peace.

America really does seem like one of those nations where a militarized police force is actually needed considering just how armed the population is, outside of a nation in a civil war, or in some kind of internal strife/at war most nations of the world don't have more weapons than people in them.


Though this can lead to some terrible things in the long run if left unchecked, and I do not think America as a whole is doing much, if anything at all to keep their own police forces in check as they "militarize"

The north Hollywood shootout is what I think really started this trend of better equipped police units, before that police really only had sidearms, with maybe a shotgun in a few cruisers, which during this incident against two bank robbers with modified full auto drum mag fed AK-74s, FN-Fals and hand tooled armor piercing rounds, in full neck to toe bodyarmor that could stop almost every round fired at them until the the SWAT team arrived quite a time after to nearly blow one of their feet off to bring him down.

This was in no way sufficient, even the SWAT team had to go to a local gunstore and seize weaponry to handle it, and even then they had to seize an armored bank vehicle for part of the operation as they did not really have an armored police vehicle.

After this if you check the statistics, you will more than likely see a rise in police forces across america better equipping themselves, and in some cases as we've seen, over equipped themselves.

(Oct 4, 2016, 03:59 AM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]Though this can lead to some terrible things in the long run if left unchecked, and I do not think America as a whole is doing much, if anything at all to keep their own police forces in check as they "militarize"

This is the big thing. I do think that there are situations to which a specialized approach is needed, but there is no checks on how SWAT teams are used. In the video linked above he mentions a few key things. The first is that in the video above he mentions small town police departments can receive MRAPs. What justifiable reason does Keene, NH have for needing a mine-resistant vehicle? Not only do officers not get training to use these kinds of vehicles, military specialists say themselves that MRAPs shouldn't be driven on public roads. So what purpose does any police department have for needing this military vehicle in the streets of America? The United States is not a warzone and should not be treated as such.

The second point is that in the same video, he mentions that SWAT teams are increasingly being used not for special cases, but for the execution of regular search warrants, especially drug related ones. Why do we need guys in military gear to invade someone's home in search of a fucking plant? It's ridiculous. Even worse is that sometimes they kill or hurt innocent people by doing so. One example includes the death of an 11-year old California boy after a SWAT officer had his shotgun pointed at him during a raid which accidentally discharged. Another example is when a SWAT team conducted a no-knock raid in the middle of the night on the wrong house and threw a flashbang into a baby's crib, which caused severe burns. Nobody was charged in either of these cases. If I accidentally kill someone or throw any kind of grenade near a baby, I'll have the book thrown at me. Why should it be any different for police?

Another point is that having police forces that are more and more like the military seriously degrade public trust in law enforcement. If cops act like they're at war, they'll start to act like the public is their enemy. Take a look at this picture out of Ferguson:

Or this one:


In these pictures, does it look like the police are protecting the public? It looks to me that they are treating the public as their enemy. I would like to point out the police stance in the first picture. Anyone knowledgeable about firearms will tell you that under no circumstances do you point your gun at something you're not willing to shoot. Yet these officers are pointing their weapons at someone with their hands up and clearly poses no threat at all. And these are the people the public is supposed to trust with their safety? 

It's easy to support police militarization if you think you're not going to be affected by it. But imagine yourself on the other side of the barrel. Imagine if your house was raided, or you were protesting and cops with assault rifles and military vehicles showed up. Would you still believe that militarized police protect and serve the people?

(Oct 4, 2016, 05:03 AM)Kung Fury Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 4, 2016, 03:59 AM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]Though this can lead to some terrible things in the long run if left unchecked, and I do not think America as a whole is doing much, if anything at all to keep their own police forces in check as they "militarize"

This is the big thing. I do think that there are situations to which a specialized approach is needed, but there is no checks on how SWAT teams are used. In the video linked above he mentions a few key things. The first is that in the video above he mentions small town police departments can receive MRAPs. What justifiable reason does Keene, NH have for needing a mine-resistant vehicle? Not only do officers not get training to use these kinds of vehicles, military specialists say themselves that MRAPs shouldn't be driven on public roads. So what purpose does any police department have for needing this military vehicle in the streets of America? The United States is not a warzone and should not be treated as such.

The second point is that in the same video, he mentions that SWAT teams are increasingly being used not for special cases, but for the execution of regular search warrants, especially drug related ones. Why do we need guys in military gear to invade someone's home in search of a fucking plant? It's ridiculous. Even worse is that sometimes they kill or hurt innocent people by doing so. One example includes

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/23/news/mn-29219 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/23/news/mn-29219 Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

the death of an 11-year old California boy after a SWAT officer had his shotgun pointed at him during a raid which accidentally discharged. Another example is when

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-after-police-grenade-dropped-in-crib-during-drug-raid/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2...drug-raid/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

a SWAT team conducted a no-knock raid in the middle of the night on the wrong house and threw a flashbang into a baby's crib, which caused severe burns. Nobody was charged in either of these cases. If I accidentally kill someone or throw any kind of grenade near a baby, I'll have the book thrown at me. Why should it be any different for police?

Another point is that having police forces that are more and more like the military seriously degrade public trust in law enforcement. If cops act like they're at war, they'll start to act like the public is their enemy. Take a look at this picture out of Ferguson:

Or this one:


In these pictures, does it look like the police are protecting the public? It looks to me that they are treating the public as their enemy. I would like to point out the police stance in the first picture. Anyone knowledgeable about firearms will tell you that under no circumstances do you point your gun at something you're not willing to shoot. Yet these officers are pointing their weapons at someone with their hands up and clearly poses no threat at all. And these are the people the public is supposed to trust with their safety? 

It's easy to support police militarization if you think you're not going to be affected by it. But imagine yourself on the other side of the barrel. Imagine if your house was raided, or you were protesting and cops with assault rifles and military vehicles showed up. Would you still believe that militarized police protect and serve the people?

I think you need to rewatch your video because one of the first things you mention in this reply is that they have a MRAP in Keene. That is not an MRAP, but a Bearcat. As you can see from these pictures

Bearcat:MRAP: Yes, some departments do have MRAPs. But the example you used do not. The Bearcat is a vehicle produced in Massachusetts and they are sold to police departments worldwide along with military personnel. They perform the same function however, which is transporting and protecting the officers in calls.

Going on about the raids you used as an example, the one where the flashbang was thrown and injured the baby, I don't think they did anything wrong as did the prosecutors. They had no information there would be a child inside, they were conducting the raid for a methamphetamine bust, and it mentions in the article the house had guards standing at the front and back door. Where there are drugs, there probably are guns especially when it explicitly mentions there being guards. The one relating to the 11 year old however I don't see why that happened. Then again, that article was written 15 years ago and the incident happened 16 years ago. If you want to present relevant things, I'd use more recent articles. A lot can change in 15 years.

Those two pictures don't really help your case. The riots in Ferguson were not "protests" as you make them out to be. They were burning down buildings, cutting the fire hoses of the firefighters that attempted to put out the blazes, and shooting each other and cops. We don't have a backstory on either of the images so it's impossible to judge those situations at face value giving the totality of the circumstances.

People can protest the "militarization" of the police force but it wouldn't be getting militarized if we didn't have rioters/criminals burning down buildings, destroying police cars, killing each other, and shooting cops.

Not that we are in one, but I'd rather live in a police state than a state without police. My two cents and I'll leave it as such.

(Oct 4, 2016, 05:46 AM)Venom Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, some departments do have MRAPs. But the example you used do not. The Bearcat is a vehicle produced in Massachusetts and they are sold to police departments worldwide along with military personnel. They perform the same function however, which is transporting and protecting the officers in calls.

Ok, perhaps I was confused about the terminology of the vehicles, but as you said functionally they are the same, and therefore my points are still valid. In the video they talk about how using these types of vehicles on public streets is unsafe. There is still no legitimate reason for the police department of Keene, NH to need a Bearcat. Say it's not technically an MRAP all you want, but its clear that the Bearcat is built to be like a military vehicle. And let's not pretend that the officers of Keene are in as much danger as guys in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Venom Wrote:If you want to present relevant things, I'd use more recent articles. A lot can change in 15 years.

https://countercurrentnews.com/2015/06/f...lity-bill/

Quote:Angela Zorich states in the lawsuit that St. Louis County Police SWAT raided her home in April of last year, killing her 4-year-old pit bull, Kiya.

The police say that the reason for the raid was to “check if her home had electricity and natural gas services.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2014/10/oops-co...-for-weed/

Quote:Agents from the Governor’s Task Force for drug suppression flying overhead spotted what they believed to be marijuana growing in the yard of Perry’s home in Cartersville,

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/okra-mistaken-pot-mans-garden/nhbHW/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/ok...den/nhbHW/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

reported WSB-TV.

But the plants were, in fact, okra.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/...ched-raid/

Quote:Law enforcement officers are still not saying much about 

Limelight - Link watcher

You're about to enter the following site: Limelight - Link watcher You're about to enter the following site: https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/02/21/u-s-marshals-kill-wrong-man-in-wrong-trailer-while-trying-to-serve-arrest-warrant-in-new-mexico/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy. https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/...ew-mexico/ Please note: You should only visit trusted sites. We are not responsible for any loss of your privacy.

shooting the wrong man during a botched raid on the wrong mobile home over the weekend, but now we’re learning they confiscated a phone from the victim’s little brother who witnessed the shooting.

And it’s far from legal, but so is shooting the wrong man dead, then asking family members for his name indicating they had no clue who they had just killed.

And cops refused to answer any questions from family members as you can see in the video below.

https://www.telegram.com/article/2015082.../150829750

Quote:At about 5:30 a.m. Wednesday, the Hillside Street woman awoke to the sound of somebody busting down her apartment door. Moments later, the 23-year-old found herself kneeling, her frightened daughters huddling close to her, as police officers with helmets and shields pointed "big guns" in her direction.

“Stop (expletive) crying and take care of your (expletive) kids,” she quoted one officer as saying. It would be 10 minutes, she said, before officers allowed her to cover herself up.
Police seized nothing during the raid, documents show, arrested no one, and did not find the man the warrant authorized them to find or the two guns he allegedly possessed.

The reason, Ms. Diaz and her roommates say, is that the man no longer lives in that apartment, and they have never seen him.

Inside her disheveled apartment Thursday – where numerous doors were busted and clothing was thrown all around – Ms. Diaz said she felt “violated” as police searched her room for 10 minutes before allowing her to cover her naked body.


Police radio transmissions show that shortly after 5:30 a.m., Worcester police at the scene requested a female officer come to 17 Hillside St.
Ms. Diaz said when the female officer arrived, she conducted a pat frisk of her nude body, including asking her to spread her legs.
“She questioned (the others) why she had to search me if I was naked,” Ms. Diaz said. “They were like, ‘Search her anyway.’”

Ms. Diaz was disturbed when informed by a reporter that courthouse records show that Worcester police had arrested Mr. Jackson on a theft warrant two weeks ago.

https://nypost.com/2014/05/06/nypd-has-r...over-suit/

Quote:Cops have barged into James Jordan Sr.’s family home looking for him more than a dozen times since he died in 2006 — prompting his exasperated relatives to finally post his death certificate on the front door.

Are any of these incidents justified? Necessary even?

Venom Wrote:Those two pictures don't really help your case. The riots in Ferguson were not "protests" as you make them out to be. They were burning down buildings, cutting the fire hoses of the firefighters that attempted to put out the blazes, and shooting each other and cops. We don't have a backstory on either of the images so it's impossible to judge those situations at face value giving the totality of the circumstances.

People can protest the "militarization" of the police force but it wouldn't be getting militarized if we didn't have rioters/criminals burning down buildings, destroying police cars, killing each other, and shooting cops.

Yes, people were rioting in Ferguson and that is bad. However, police still did bad things during the riots as well. There are accounts of people being illegally detained by the police and even police launching tear gas at news crews.
If you don't think that picture is good evidence, I would like to present this exemplary video:

Do you think that these cops are justified in walking around pointing their weapons at civilians that clearly pose no threat? The fucking military has more restraint than these officers, and their job is way more dangerous.
Cops want to be more and more like the military, but they don't have the training and they definitely don't have the discipline that soldiers do.

Just my opinion, but if I were placed in a situation where I had multiple people crowding around me, during a riot with known armed individuals among civilians and civilians media, I would be scared shit less too.

Also about the vehicles argument. The US has a very big chunk of itself armed. I see no reason for SWAT to take precautions to protect themselves in an armored vehicle, especially in a possibly dangerous situation like the Ferguson Riots and any dangerous house calls.

(Oct 5, 2016, 05:34 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]Just my opinion, but if I were placed in a situation where I had multiple people crowding around me, during a riot with known armed individuals among civilians and civilians media, I would be scared shit less too.

Also about the vehicles argument. The US has a very big chunk of itself armed. I see no reason for SWAT to take precautions to protect themselves in an armored vehicle, especially in a possibly dangerous situation like the Ferguson Riots and any dangerous house calls.

I think you mean see no reason for SWAT not to take precautions, since right now it sounds like you are saying they shouldn't take precautions.

My opinion: Police militarization is often needed in the US. There are protests, often violent going on every day. Add the massive amount of firearms in the US. That leaves these cops vulnerable to people who may be dangerous, and looking for revenge. Take Ferguson for example, are you going to stand back and watch as protesters are attacking people and burning cars? No, you are going there with a bearcat and riot gear to not only help the peaceful citizens, but help the cops in the area too. You say there is no reason for smaller towns to get Bearcats, but there is often a need. They could use it for themselves, give it to a neighboring town if they need it for a short time, and many other things. The addition of a bearcat to a force not only helps the cops with training etc, but the people too. Swat can get close in with a bearcat, but not with for exanple, a tahoe that isn't fully armored. Once they get close enough, they can end an active shooter/drug raid quicker.

While too much militarization could be bad, I don't think they can get extreme military vehicles like turreted armored vehicles *cough* mrap *cough* on a DOD grant.

Sorry for spelling mistakes, typed on phone

(Oct 5, 2016, 05:34 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]Just my opinion, but if I were placed in a situation where I had multiple people crowding around me, during a riot with known armed individuals among civilians and civilians media, I would be scared shit less too.

That's no excuse for waving an assault rifle around (with the finger on the trigger I might add), pointing it at civilians, saying "I'll fucking kill you", and then replying with "go fuck yourself" when asked for a name. The fact that this guy was able to become a police officer in the first place should be deeply concerning.

Hungames Wrote:My opinion: Police militarization is often needed in the US. There are protests, often violent going on every day. Add the massive amount of firearms in the US. That leaves these cops vulnerable to people who may be dangerous, and looking for revenge. Take Ferguson for example, are you going to stand back and watch as protesters are attacking people and burning cars? No, you are going there with a bearcat and riot gear to not only help the peaceful citizens, but help the cops in the area too. You say there is no reason for smaller towns to get Bearcats, but there is often a need. They could use it for themselves, give it to a neighboring town if they need it for a short time, and many other things. The addition of a bearcat to a force not only helps the cops with training etc, but the people too. Swat can get close in with a bearcat, but not with for exanple, a tahoe that isn't fully armored. Once they get close enough, they can end an active shooter/drug raid quicker. 

I cannot envision a situation where a standard SWAT van wouldn't suffice and an MRAP/Bearcat would be necessary. SWAT teams and equipment should be reserved for only the most extreme of situations where there is a great risk to well-being. Definitely not for a drug raid on someone's home which is likely to not benefit society and just ruin somebody's life. People are saying that if there's a riot going on then its needed, but this is not the case. Here is a snippet from a senate hearing on the use of military equipment in Ferguson. In the video, the senator points out that FEMA's guidelines for the military vehicles used in Ferguson have written descriptions which include statements that say the vehicles are not to be used for riot suppression. The part I'm talking about starts at 0:55.


The army has a publicly viewable field manual on handling civil disturbance operations which points out what and what not to do, and the cops in Ferguson did a lot of things wrong. This article goes further into detail and also points out that certain police tactics such as putting snipers out in the open as a show of force actually put them at greater risk if a threat actually exists. So much for militarization keeping officers safe.

Hungames Wrote:While too much militarization could be bad, I don't think they can get extreme military vehicles like turreted armored vehicles *cough* mrap *cough* on a DOD grant. 

Actually many departments get MRAPs and even stuff like grenade launchers through the DoD's excess property(also known as 1033) program. Also, too much militarization is bad, in case that wasn't evident from the various abuses of SWAT teams I posted above. Police are supposed to protect and serve their communities, but police becoming more and more like the military changes the function of police from being keepers of peace to brutal enforcers of often times unjust laws, as can be seen with the current war on drugs.

Also I would like to address this point:

Venom Wrote:Going on about the raids you used as an example, the one where the flashbang was thrown and injured the baby, I don't think they did anything wrong as did the prosecutors. They had no information there would be a child inside, they were conducting the raid for a methamphetamine bust, and it mentions in the article the house had guards standing at the front and back door. Where there are drugs, there probably are guns especially when it explicitly mentions there being guards.

The article states that a confidential informant said he went to the property to buy meth and that there were guards there. Seeing as neither meth nor weapons were found at the property, it seems fairly obvious the the informant was lying. Since confidential informants are generally not required to testify in court, the validity of his or her claims cannot be verified. It appears that the police used the CIs claim as the only basis for the search warrant and didn't do things such as stakeout the property first. Not having intel on the place and situation before raiding it is a huge problem and it is absolutely not an excuse for the police's actions here. It is intolerable that this department put these people's lives at risk because they didn't do their job and make sure that the people they were raiding were actually committing a crime and were a danger. Now a baby and his family are suffering due to these cops' incompetence.

Kung, what is your definition of a "SWAT van". If you refer to the LL armored SWAT van, which is a bearcat, then you are disproving yourself. Take Dallas for example, would you rather the swat go in against active shooters in a non-armored SUV or an armored bearcat protecting them from any shots? By the way, SWAT don't receive MRAPS with .50 calibre machine guns on them, at most they may receive an armored, non-turreted variation. The most common vehicle you will find is a Lenco BearCat which is used by SWAT all around. Bearcats are also especially useful during also drug raid since the people operating the target building could be armed and under the influence leading to increased aggression.

You also like to brush aside the fact that humans crack under pressure. If a cop is fearing for his/her life, and is getting verbally abused, they are going to get angry. Who wouldn't?

One question. May I ask what your nationality is Kung?

Also, you do know that most swat teams operate by calling normal officers in and gearing them up? SWAT teams aren't full time.

(Oct 7, 2016, 06:10 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]Kung, what is your definition of a "SWAT van". If you refer to the LL armored SWAT van, which is a bearcat, then you are disproving yourself. Take Dallas for example, would you rather the swat go in against active shooters in a non-armored SUV or an armored bearcat protecting them from any shots? By the way, SWAT don't receive MRAPS with .50 calibre machine guns on them, at most they may receive an armored, non-turreted variation. The most common vehicle you will find is a Lenco BearCat which is used by SWAT all around. Bearcats are also especially useful during also drug raid since the people operating the target building could be armed and under the influence leading to increased aggression.

To say that the only choices are a dinky, unarmored SUV or a decked out military style bearcat creates a false dilemma. I didn't find a lot of statistics on police vehicles, but according to the wikipedia page for the Lenco BearCat, there's about 5000 bearcats in use around the world, with around 500 within the US. Since there are millions of cities within the US and by extension police departments, many with SWAT teams, but only around 500 bearcats in use in the US, we can conclude that most SWAT teams use a different kind of vehicle to be transported to and from dangerous situations, and have done so for a long time. Also seeing as deaths of police in the US has been on a steady decline for the past few decades, yet the push for the militarization of police has been fairly recent, the argument can be made that militarized police vehicles like bearcats do not provide a significant benefit to the safety of police forces.

Hungames Wrote:You also like to brush aside the fact that humans crack under pressure. If a cop is fearing for his/her life, and is getting verbally abused, they are going to get angry. Who wouldn't?

If the result of a police officer coming under pressure is that they endanger the lives of civilians, then they are unfit for the job. If a civilian waved a rifle around pointing it at crowds and yelled "I'll fucking kill you" to said crowds, it's extremely likely that they would be facing many years in prison and the argument of "I feared for my life" would not hold up in court. The same should be true for a police officer, as they cannot be above the law.

Hungames Wrote:One question. May I ask what your nationality is Kung?

Also, you do know that most swat teams operate by calling normal officers in and gearing them up? SWAT teams aren't full time.

I am American and I am aware that SWAT officers perform normal patrol duties when not on SWAT calls, but I do not see how either of those things are relevant to the topic of police militarization.

(Oct 8, 2016, 03:28 AM)Kung Fury Wrote: [ -> ]-SNIP-

There are other options to bearcats and SUVs, but a bearcat usually offers the most protection to officers in dangerous or possibly dangerous areas. Police officer deaths will also continue to decrease if they go to further measures to protect themselves in active shooter situations, etc. 

By millions of cities, are you referring to major places like Dallas, NYC, San Diego, etc. or smaller ones too, that are very little known?

A civilian holding a rifle out on the street and a cop holding a rifle during a riot is very different. A civilian has no purpose holding the rifle out in public and yelling that he/she will kill people. However, a cop should have a rifle during a RIOT where ARMED individuals are known to be. They wouldn't know who exactly is armed or not, so they are going to fear for their lives, and have a legitimate argument if they are brought to court. The civilian wouldn't be faced with mobs of angry people like the cops during riots are.

(Oct 5, 2016, 08:51 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 5, 2016, 05:34 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]Just my opinion, but if I were placed in a situation where I had multiple people crowding around me, during a riot with known armed individuals among civilians and civilians media, I would be scared shit less too.

Also about the vehicles argument. The US has a very big chunk of itself armed. I see no reason for SWAT to take precautions to protect themselves in an armored vehicle, especially in a possibly dangerous situation like the Ferguson Riots and any dangerous house calls.

I think you mean see no reason for SWAT not to take precautions, since right now it sounds like you are saying they shouldn't take precautions.

My opinion: Police militarization is often needed in the US. There are protests, often violent going on every day. Add the massive amount of firearms in the US. That leaves these cops vulnerable to people who may be dangerous, and looking for revenge. Take Ferguson for example, are you going to stand back and watch as protesters are attacking people and burning cars? No, you are going there with a bearcat and riot gear to not only help the peaceful citizens, but help the cops in the area too. You say there is no reason for smaller towns to get Bearcats, but there is often a need. They could use it for themselves, give it to a neighboring town if they need it for a short time, and many other things. The addition of a bearcat to a force not only helps the cops with training etc, but the people too. Swat can get close in with a bearcat, but not with for exanple, a tahoe that isn't fully armored. Once they get close enough, they can end an active shooter/drug raid quicker.

While too much militarization could be bad, I don't think they can get extreme military vehicles like turreted armored vehicles *cough* mrap *cough* on a DOD grant.

Sorry for spelling mistakes, typed on phone

Ahh, no. What I was trying to say in my vehicle statement was I see no reason for SWAT to NOT take precautions, meaning they do take precautions.

(Oct 8, 2016, 04:24 AM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 8, 2016, 03:28 AM)Kung Fury Wrote: [ -> ]-SNIP-

A civilian holding a rifle out on the street and a cop holding a rifle during a riot is very different. A civilian has no purpose holding the rifle out in public and yelling that he/she will kill people. However, a cop should have a rifle during a RIOT where ARMED individuals are known to be. They wouldn't know who exactly is armed or not, so they are going to fear for their lives, and have a legitimate argument if they are brought to court. The civilian wouldn't be faced with mobs of angry people like the cops during riots are.

Fully agreed.

The problem isn't the police in the situation of acting human, it's the problem of people surrounding an armed officer from all angles and boxing him in. The only reason they are doing this is to "expose the truth", but in reality it can crack a person's psychological state to a point when his survival insticts say, "Armed people in the area. Surrounded. Need to get out and fast. Gotta say something for them to back off." Their won't be kind words because adrenaline is pumping, fear is growing, and the officer is trying to stay safe. It's that person's risk to get up close to an armed officer knowing well that it's not gonna do anything good, unless you consider "CNN Camera Man detained for getting in officer's personal bubble!?!?!?"