"In Wake of Clashes, Calls to Demilitarize Police"

Who says they need to?  Who says there is no trust?  I have never felt a lack of trust by the overwhelming majority of people. 

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ x2

You wold REALLY not fault them if you knew what they were dealing with.  The media reporting is a joke.  Now THAT'S an entity to distrust.

I can see both sides of the argument, not sure what the "answer" is.

1. You can't really fault the cops too much, if the feds called me up and asked me if I wanted a machine gun for next to zero cost to me I would likely say "where do we meet?!?!" All that wonderful trillions of spending we did in Iraq is now causing issues here with surplus stuff going to local cops. It has even been a big deal here in podunk Idaho. The town I grew up in that boasts a whopping 35k people has an MRAP now and they use it to serve search warrants for marijuana. Little out of hand IMO but they got it for free and it is in the garage so why not use it?

ETA: forgot the story from Nampa. Lady calls the PD, says someone in the house is contemplating suicide and she wants someone to help talk him out of it. The Nampa PD send in the SWAT team in full military garb and aboard their shiny new MRAP. They lay siege to the house and the start yelling at the guy through a bullhorn while aiming automatic weapons at him, so of course he offs himself.

Another story from Idaho. http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/03/27/idaho-family-terrorized-midnight-paramilitary-raid/

2. Do the cops really need this stuff? On one hand I can see why they might want it. I don't have to be the guy to go round up a gang leader that is known to have decent weaponry, if I was that guy I likely wouldn't mind being inside an MRAP.

On the other hand I can see the argument against them having it. Kinda goes along the argument against having a standing army that our forefathers warned about. Between the Dep of Homeland Security, the FBI, the National Guard and now local PD's (heck even the dept of education and IRS) we have one heck of a standing army, and now they are being equipped just like an army. I think a great argument against them being equipped this way is the tendency for police and other departments to do things first and then sort out the legal details later. Take the Boston bombing, they went door to door forcing entry, forcing people out of their homes at gun point, illegally searching, etc. looking for one guy. I would argue that a lot of it was not legal and was a civil rights violation, but in the interest of "safety" they did it anyway and then the legal issue is sorted out later. A win in court for the ACLU doesn't do much to help the family who is being forced out if their home by guys in full battle gear with AR's pointed at their heads. 

There are many PD's who have a reputation for abuse of power and don't hold much trust from their communities, giving these PD's more firepower is not in the best interest of the community for a lot of people. 

My last point is more of a question to those in the know. LB and others post time and time again that the crime rate has literally plummeted from what it was in the 70's 80's and even the 90's. Violent crime is down across the board. So why is it that back in the day when violent crime was so high were the cops able to do their jobs without military gear, now that crime is down they need tanks and bazookas? 

I think I would rather leave the military equipment to the National Guard and keep police as lightly armed public servants, when the situation calls for it, call up the National Guard, otherwise the police with their .40's and shotguns can handle things.

Aaron - THIS is what started PD's acquiring more firepower.  I was in my 10th year then and remember well the wave that swept across the country's Police Departments in the name of being able to defend against that type of weaponry/armor. Once that ball started rolling, the arms race was on....nearly 20 years later, and here we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

That is a good case where an MRAP would have been useful. 

I guess I still see two issues. 

1. Smaller towns likely don't need this sort of firepower (Idaho is not LA) but the feds are literally giving it away for free. Nampa got an MRAP and only had to pay for the gas to get it here from Washington.

2. Perhaps the solution is better oversight on when the equipment is used. No knock raids for suspected marijuana possession does not seem like an appropriate use of SWAT or their equipment. The Nampa police chief used the excuse that pretty much every Idaho household has a gun in it so they have to roll heavy and hard whenever they feel like it. 

Question for you then LB, would it be plausible to reduce Police back to what they had at the Hollywood rampage and then just partner better with the National Guard for the rare occurrence like the shooting you posted? It is not every day heavily armed and armored dudes do what they did in Hollywood, would it not be possible for National Guard to respond to something like that in a quick manner when needed or are things not structured that way and would it be impossible to structure them that way?

I don't know.  Part of why Police Departments are given this type of equipment is a simple matter of maintenance.  It's certainly possible in today's world of terrorism that we would one day have to defend our country the way some countries in Europe do now.....and we will need that equipment.  It would be stupid to let it sit and go to rusted heaps.

I don't think you could ever structure the National Guard to be able to respond quickly to an incident involving heavily armed subjects.  You wold have to pay them full time, they would have to be already deployed, and then we really ARE talking about a standing Army policing the ocuntry, right?

As for the everyday occurence of heavily armed dudes.....unfortunately, today, MANY criminals are armed with those types of weapons.  Remember, that was nearly 20 years ago....those weapons are pretty common now.  I don't want to be outgunned trying to do my job.  I'm OK with equal, I'm not OK with having less.

I agree with many of your other points.  No-knock warrants for marijuana as an example......dumb.   Barging into homes in Boston and searching them in the name of safety.....illegal as far as I'm concerned.

The cops have F-15s, tanks, grenades and rocket launchers?

They are a long way from the military.

F-15's no, choppers equipped with machine guns, yes. Taniks, bascially yes.  Grenades, yes.  Rockets, not yet.  

The thing is, we might be a long way from OUR military.  But I wonder how the nation's police departments and officers, collectively,  stand up to other armies of the world.  I think we'd all be surprised. (that's not a comment on whether it's right or wrong.....just an observation)

I thought the National Guard idea might be a bit far fetched. To be honest I don't know much about how the National Guard works, other than they will buy me a BMW and pay for my education for one weekend a month and two weeks per year!

Perhaps limiting the military equipment to Sheriff departments could be a workable solution. Sheriff's have to answer to the voters whereas Police chiefs do not. I know around here the Sheriff has a much better rep than the city PD's do.

That would cut down on using the MRAP for situations where it is not needed if they PD had to call up the Sheriff to request the vehicle. Sounds better than... "hey, we got a call, you wanna take the Crown Vics or should we fire up the tank?!?"  

I hate Twitter and don't have any idea as to the validity of this, but here it is anyway.

https://storify.com/AthertonKD/veterans-on-ferguson

Seems to me that it is usually the "boots on the ground" that get things done these days and from the pics I have seen of some police departments, yes, they are just as well equipped as the boots on the ground overseas. 

Do NOT underestimate the role of the media in this and their ability to stir the masses.

The area I work in has had major racial divides over the last 10 years.  Nealry half our city council was gunned down in one event, another officer killed in an area of public housing, etc.  In the midst of some of that biggest strife (and we were in the news almost daily for nearly a year), we shot a man in a vehicle at the end of a pursuit because he was gunning the engine in a front yard and our officers feared for their lives.  Every news channel called to see what was going on.  NONE showed up.  Two of the five stations went so far as to openly ask the question, "is the suspect white or black?"

Yep, I was going to bring up the North Hollywood shooting as you did below. I have no problem with our police arming and protecting themselves above and beyond  the level of firepower they're up against.

He was white....and not worthy of a story. (in fairness, on many levels....human garbage)

Admittedly, I fall prey to the same stupidity.  When I got the call that morning that my guys had shot someone after a car chase my first question was whether they were white or black.  It's an unfortunate reality that what I will have to deal with in the aftermath is very closely tied to race when it comes to use-of-force issues. 

The funny thing is, we don't care at all what color you are......we just hate azzholes. The problem part is, nobody cares if we kill a white person.....it's not news.  I wish I wasn't so cycnical about this issue, but I've lived it many times.