Grenade launchers have no useful application in policing, I'll give you that.
As far as MRAPs go, I'm not saying have officers just out in them at all times. But a bullet proof vehicle for SWAT purposes is a must.
Also, not all agencies have a $160 million budget.
You're taking an all or nothing stance here. I'm not. I'm saying, equipment that is useful that is being donated from the military is a good thing. I'm not saying agencies need grenade launchers or something crazy. A drone to defuse bombs, a must for at least large city agencies (statistically more likely). CS gas and smoke, a must (not a lot and only for SWAT). Rifles/long guns of some sort, a must (rifles are more needed for SWAT, but most places issue a pistol and shotgun as is to patrol). That's what I'm talking about. Helicopters are only useful for large agencies that will find roof breaching being something that they do often, or for surveillance purposes to gather intel before a SWAT mission.
These are the things I am talking about. Want to reign in what goes out in the 1033 program? Fine. But saying "nah, they don't need any of this" is as ignorant as saying "WE NEED ALL OF THIS!"
I'm not saying every agency needs "an abundance" of military equipment. Most of the equipment given include rifles and various non-lethal weapons, like smoke, concussion and CS gas. And those only go to SWAT teams. I don't think you'll see any of the 1033 equipment being used commonly among patrol officers. That's why I am not seeing what the freak out about it is for.
The argument for them is things like whole school hostage situations, mass shootings, bomb threats/bombings, etc. occur every year. The better equipment available to the people (cops) who have to respond and handle these situations, the safer all can be. I'd much rather have the officers responding to a mass school shooting be able to drive to the door of the school in an armored personnel carrier than have them park their crown vics in the parking lot and walk across the lawn to the door, completely exposed for the shooter inside.
Also, why pay for these things "if they truly need them" (psst...they do or very well may) when they are given...for free. Know what funds police forces? Taxes. Know what people hate? More taxes. Know what the best way to avoid having to spend money on necessary equipment is? Have them donated via places where there is a surplus, like the military. If you have no problem with them being purchased, then owning them isn't the problem. What, the military can't work with law enforcement to ensure they have equipment they may well need?
It's better to have and not need than to need and not have. I don't see the harm in law enforcement having the gear they need for worst case scenarios. The best I can muster isn't "well, you never know". It's literally "this is the real world and cops are the ones dealing with domestic terrorism, not the military. Let them have proper equipment for things such as that".
Your argument is "I say there is no practical use for it and it makes me uneasy for some odd reason, so I'm gonna keep repeating it and belittling others for disagreeing".
OK, by that same line of thinking, cops shouldn't have guns period. Statistically, the VAST majority of cops will never have to discharge their firearm. Let's just take up all the guns from cops.
The point isn't that they're being used. It's that there are very real situations in which the gear from the 1033 program could be used. Sure, those aren't common, but when they happen, you need appropriate gear.
Some fire departments get military vehicles as well. Gonna cut that too?
Again, first responders are on the front lines when it comes to terrorism. And not to mention, events like the Dallas PD attack.
I've yet to hear a single reason as to WHY they're not needed? Also, it's FREE. Costs nobody any money. And your solution...is to ask it to be "budgeted in"? When a lot of agencies can barely afford new cars when they need them? When benefits packages are being cut to make room?
Seriously, just one reason as to how they're a negative thing.
There isn't really any planning in the week for specific opponents. There isn't much film watching, if any. What do you expect? Him to go out there and light it up? We're running plays for game reps, not to necessarily move the ball. It's preseason. They're glorified practices. Calm down.
Maybe what I'm saying is confusing or sounding semi-contradictory. Let me just take this quote step by step.
Explain that first paragraph with examples please.
I am all for legalization of marijuana, because it is ridiculous. As far as other drugs, to a point. A lot comes down to sentencing, which ties in to the later point you make about prison population. Not exactly a law enforcement issue, more of a court system issue.
There are immensely more people in the general public than are cops. And cops have training in situations where deadly force would be authorized. The key is to act first. I'm not for loss of life, but I am for defending yourself and others from an imminent threat all day (I think most people are). So, people being killed by cops, not necessarily a good thing. However, let's not act like every civilian killed by a cop was just an innocent bystander who did nothing to contribute to the situation either. Case in point, the Kerrick trial. Sure, he's unarmed, but you only KNOW that after the fact. If any guy is charging you, for no reason at all, and you TRY to use non-lethal force but it fails, and you see nothing in his hands...are you REALLY going to assume he's unarmed as he's sprinting at you? It takes no time to pull a knife out and kill somebody. Or a gun. Split second decisions that are created BY civilians. Again, doesn't excuse bad cop shootings, but it does explain the ones that get painted as "unarmed man shot by police".
I'm not trying to dismiss the gap. At all. I understand the issue. What I'm saying is that the public has a responsibility to do their best to NOT create a hostile situation. Just as much as the officer in de-escalation efforts. Our culture here (specifically, our gun culture) makes it a bit harder to get the same numbers as places like Germany. Law enforcement HAS to assume everybody is armed, because statistically speaking, everybody is. Law enforcement's role is not only to take care of the matter at hand, but to also control the situation and ensure everybody is safe. Some angry guy who won't shut up and just sit down with his hands on his lap doesn't make that easier. Neither does Bubba sitting in the back seat on a traffic stop for something minor, but knowing he has warrants, so he jumps out and starts shooting. NOT SAYING WE CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T TRY. Just saying that it's not something that we can emulate easily and throwing out a couple of ideas and saying "this will work" is ridiculous. It's a complex issue, and it's not ALL on law enforcement to handle. There has to be cooperation from the public in making the relations better so use of force scenarios are occurring less. Demonizing law enforcement does nothing but create and us vs them situation in which nobody can win.
I know not everybody here is in to metal or metalcore or whatever you want to call it. Parkway Drive has been one of my favorite musical artists period, in any genre, since I discovered them. From lyrical content, to composition, their live performances, just everything. Phenomenal band. Their new album is yet to release, but they've released two singles from it already and hooooooooooly crap is it crazy. It's heavy, but it's so different from their previous work.
They started doing a cover of Bulls on Parade by Rage Against the Machine over the past year, and were asked why they were covering it. Basically, the band really respects RATM. They love their music, and had fun riffing their songs at practices, so they decided to do it live. Well...you can really hear the influence in this new album. Particularly, the newest of the two songs released from Ire.
To be honest, I wasn't crazy about it on first listen. I listened to it through my phone's speakers and it was just OK. Felt kind of flat. However, my car has amazing speakers, so I played it through youtube in my car....and it makes a difference. So listen to this in the best environment for music that you have. It is intense.
Off topic, but I usually just shake my head and go "mm mm mm...never learns..." at a PanthersUnited thread. This one isn't as bad as others, guys. Cut him some slack. This is deserving of a bit of conversation (at least more than other threads).
I think Hardy put us in more of a bind. Losing KB hurts me personally more, because I was looking for a BIG year from him this year. Seeing him at Fan Fest, and just how ready he looked. How excited he was to be out there among the fans and on the field at BoA. He was going to go for 10+ TDs and 1000+ yards. I just knew it.
Hardy definitely effected the team more. Especially considering the fact that Cam went down and we HAD to lean on our defense for the first part of the year. It took a few games to get our bearings on defense completely. KB won't put us in that spot. We have guys who can play. Not at that level, but the drop off in talent isn't as significant as it was to go from Hardy to Ealy/Horton.
In total honesty, I don't view it quite like that. I think that circumstances dictate different approaches. Might we be able to get it to 0 officers killing anybody all year in the US at some point? Maybe. However, you can't tell me it'll be easy. There have been 5 officers I know of in the US over the past 3 days that have been shot and either are in critical condition now or dead. It's not a one-way issue like BLM wants to paint it.
Eh. A lot of agencies have stopped chasing for everything except for violent offenses. Bias testing? Most people have biases. As long as they don't let those biases inform how they police, then it shouldn't matter. Why not bias test fire? EMS? Bill in the Gardening Center at Walmart? OK OK, I am being a little ridiculous. I just think it's a stupid idea and fail to see how it will be beneficial. Most agencies have a psych evaluation as part of the hiring process. Biases get uncovered.
Have to be careful with stops for a general description. You have all the reasonable suspicion you need for a stop if a "blank/blank" is seen in a general area of a crime. That's all you need. However, I think it best to find more than just the fact that they're the same race and gender of the suspect. If they appear to avoid me, or check behind them as a drive past...I think that'd be a good idea.
Affirmative action. Again, I think having officers that are black, white, male, female, Hispanic, etc. is a great idea. It allows your agency to better communicate with ALL of your community....but you can't just NOT fill spots that need filling because you're waiting for a woman or a non-white to apply. Not every agency has the means to go recruiting...
Forced lie detector...there's a reason why they're inadmissible in court. But you want them used in matters involving officer discipline? If they're viewed as ineffective means to indict the public, why should officers be subjected to a forced testing? That makes no sense. Again, it APPEARS to me that that website and organization simply wants to stick it to cops. The things they offer as solutions are either missing the point or are things that already occur (with the exception of like, two valid points).
A more accurate tldr would be "some things could use tweaking, and the glaring issues need to be addressed. However, we shouldn't be looking for ways to undermine officers due to misplaced fear, hatred, and general ignorance to what policing is."