@9TYJFHK10mos10MO
#1 Informed Demilitarize the Police
Most "militarisation" of equippment is just getting surplus/common gear instead of buying different stuff.
Ballistic armor poses no risk of harm, and firearms don't suddenly go from "not dangerous" to "dangerous" past a certain point.
When especially dangerous equipment (breaching explosives, flashbangs, etc) or tactics are needed, misuse is a training problem. If you have to reserve some things for specialists, so be it (beat cops normally don't carry flashbangs and C2).
@Cuz-I-Know-Stuff6mos6MO
Engaged Demilitarize the Police
Many people think that when you "militarize" the police, it means giving them rocket launchers, tanks, etc. Sometimes that is the case but usually they receive armored vehicles, stronger plate armor, and automatic rifles (which most S.W.A.T. officers usually already have).
I see where you're coming from, but let's flip the pancake here. Imagine you're a cop responding to an active shooter situation. You've got your standard equipment, maybe a pistol and a taser. Meanwhile, the bad guy's got military-grade gear. It's like bringing a slingshot to a bazooka party, not the best odds, huh? Now, I'm not saying we start handing out tanks at the precinct, but some advanced protective gear wouldn't be a bad idea.
What's your take on that scenario? Any alternative solutions to level the playing field without escalating things too much?
Join in on more popular conversations.
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
