Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
1–10 of 339 posts
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#2I don’t think the police need MRAPs. That’s a bit over the top. However, it does seem they need some sort of up-armored police cars given how many of them have been destroyed in the rioting. SWAT maybe has some use for military equipment, but only for bona-fide SWAT situations (hostages/bombs/active shooter.) But rolling out MRAPs for general policing is a bad policy. It’s one step removed from deploying tanks and it’s a bad look and probably counterproductive.
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#3> Mr. Gallego said. “Our neighborhoods aren’t war zones.”
Unfortunately, I am not sure that will be the case in a week. I think by the time the actual voting on the bill comes, it is likely that either the protests have died down removing the immediacy of this, or else there is so much destruction in the cities that this becomes not politically viable.
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#4They would need to restrict capabilities, not just cut off access to "military-style" gear. They make the same mistake with gun laws where they ban "military-style" weapons because they look scary, but allow weapons that are just as deadly because they have a wooden stock and don't look as scary as "military-style" weapons.
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#5Focusing on the gear seems like a cheap and easy solution compared to fixing training and accountability, the actual root of the issue.
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#6I don’t think the police need MRAPs. That’s a bit over the top. However, it does seem they need some sort of up-armored police cars given how many of them have been destroyed in the rioting. SWAT maybe has some use for military equipment, but only for bona-fide SWAT situations (hostages/bombs/active shooter.) But rolling out MRAPs for general policing is a bad policy. It’s one step removed from deploying tanks and it…
Riots don't happen in the thousands of small towns who have leveled up with useless armored vehicles.
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#7I don’t think the police need MRAPs. That’s a bit over the top. However, it does seem they need some sort of up-armored police cars given how many of them have been destroyed in the rioting. SWAT maybe has some use for military equipment, but only for bona-fide SWAT situations (hostages/bombs/active shooter.) But rolling out MRAPs for general policing is a bad policy. It’s one step removed from deploying tanks and it…
Riots don't happen in the thousands of small towns who have leveled up with useless armored vehicles.
I think that's the same argument somebody advocating for the use of armored vehicles would make... no riots is the goal, after all
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#8They would need to restrict capabilities, not just cut off access to "military-style" gear. They make the same mistake with gun laws where they ban "military-style" weapons because they look scary, but allow weapons that are just as deadly because they have a wooden stock and don't look as scary as "military-style" weapons.
Why don't impressions matter?
It's important that more people see officers and get the impression that they are there to enforce peace, not dole out violence -- while still ensuring they have the tools to maintain safety and order. Large, threatening military-style vehicles don't send a good message to people who are already scared for their safety.
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#9They would need to restrict capabilities, not just cut off access to "military-style" gear. They make the same mistake with gun laws where they ban "military-style" weapons because they look scary, but allow weapons that are just as deadly because they have a wooden stock and don't look as scary as "military-style" weapons.
Yes, but it's a start. MRAPs are expensive; a lot of departments that have them likely couldn't afford one if they weren't handed out for free.
Re: Lawmakers begin bipartisan push to cut off police access to military-style gear
#10Focusing on the gear seems like a cheap and easy solution compared to fixing training and accountability, the actual root of the issue.
No when life gives you lemons, there is no need for whataboutism. Let’s keep pressuring and working to get to training and accountability too.