It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should patrol Officers be equipped with helmets and plate carriers?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Mods please move to where you see fit.

Should ballistic helmets and rifle plate carriers be standard issue for patrol Officers? I know to many, even myself, that this could work both ways as far as militarizing the police. But the latest threats to officers have involved rifles, which their standard soft body armor will only protect against handguns and shotguns.

There are some obvious drawbacks however, besides the militarizing issue. The police carry enough gear as it is weighing them down, so having body armor designed to stop rifle rounds, are going to weigh them down even more, making foot chases and everyday police duties even more difficult. The current helmets of today will typically not stop rifle rounds either, but have in the past saved peoples lives by sometimes deflecting the round due to its curved nature. Better than nothing I suppose.

There is also a newer type of ballistic shield that folds up into a smaller package, compared to the standard shield we are used to seeing swat teams use when making entries into dwellings.




I have even toyed with the idea of somehow making a collective GoFundMe type page to help raise money so that these departments can have these items, as many police departments cannot afford to equip every Officer with this stuff because it is very expensive and the costs would add up pretty quick. But this is just an idea.

So ATS, would you be for or against Officers obtaining this type of equipment? Why and why not?




posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I say if your signing up to be a police officer, you know the risks. Further militarizing the police is a slippery slope. it's bad enough as it is and getting worse.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tjoran
I say if your signing up to be a police officer, you know the risks. Further militarizing the police is a slippery slope. it's bad enough as it is and getting worse.


I can understand that side of the coin.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Tjoran
I say if your signing up to be a police officer, you know the risks. Further militarizing the police is a slippery slope. it's bad enough as it is and getting worse.


I can understand that side of the coin.


Ask yourself this, In some crazy alternate reality world you find yourself fighting the police. Do you wan't to face them with all this gear?
edit on 17-7-2016 by Tjoran because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Tjoran


I am 61 years old and I grew up having respect for the law and police
officers.I want them to have the gear they need to protect themselves
with.But...
I see what you are saying about the police becoming too militarized.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tjoran

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: Tjoran
I say if your signing up to be a police officer, you know the risks. Further militarizing the police is a slippery slope. it's bad enough as it is and getting worse.


I can understand that side of the coin.


Ask yourself this, In some crazy alternate reality world you find yourself fighting the police. Do you wan't to face them with all this gear?


No, but the way things are going now, I seriously doubt the police would side with the very government that is partly or mostly responsible for this mess. But again I clearly thought of this before I made the thread and again, yes that is one of the potential downsides to the whole idea.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Our local police are what stands between the people and the terrorists...and I'm including the terrorists that are cold-bloodedly killing our police officers.

I say give them what they NEED. Do not allow our local police departments to be federalized. That would be a huge mistake, imo. But, give the local police departments what they need.

Some cities in this country are cesspools of crime, delinquency, chaos, and disorder. Those police departments may need a different type of equipment than the ones in less lawless areas.

We have some real problems with certain segments of our society. They are becoming mean, organized, stirred up by outside influences, and militarized. The police forces that have to fight them need to be armed with whatever it takes.


edit on 17-7-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I'm thinking full body armor.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I just wonder if people would feel comfortable having officers walking around or standing on street corners with this kind of armor and maybe assault rifles as standard.

I mean isn't that what SWAT are supposd to be for? If an officer thinks the situation is deadly then call SWAT and fall back?

I think I would actually find it threatening to see and I don't think I would feel comfortable.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

This action would only serve to further the militarization of the police forces, and thus exacerbate/escalate the already untenable situation extant between the police and (a growing segment of) the public.

It is, in fact, symptomatic of the exactly opposite of what needs to be done.

For reasons both real and imagined, a large segment of the US population fear the forces of the police.

Over the decades, that fear, as so often is the case, has morphed into distrust and, in my cases, outright anger.

Consider how many Americans feel about Jihadi terrorists.

The emotions are very similar.

And these emotions almost never lead to sound, rational decisions and/or actions.

Now, consider how the police forces represent the other side of the coin, so to speak.

Confronted, on a day to day basis by a public that is assumed to be hostile due to decades of incidental injustices, both perceived and (admittedly in some cases) real, the police are faced with what they must perceive to be potentially violent interactions with every contact.

They must live in a state of constant vigilance, arising out of a state of constant fear.

And as we have said, fear gives way to distrust, and eventually, often, to anger.

And neither fear, nor anger, lead to positive outcomes.


We need to de-escalate, both sides of the equation.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

I think the days of the neighborhood beat cop are over.

Some segments of our society have not been taught to respect them and to look upon them as helpers and protectors. The children in these communities have been taught to spit on them, taunt them, and disrepect them generationally......but, cops aren't supposed to fear for their own lives when they deal with them?!!?

Local police that have to work in these areas have a tough tough job. Time for cities and states to provide them with what they need to deal with these areas, because I don't think it is going to change anytime soon. Too many outsiders are stirring up the masses for mayhem to effect the change they want and the agenda they have.


edit on 17-7-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I don't think of body armor as militarizing. They can already purchase and use that gear as far as I know. Shoot I can purchase that gear and use it.

We don't need them running around with SAWs and whatnot, but a hunk of metal to protect yourself doesn't seem like a bad idea at all.

Remember too that it could very well be a life saver for people other than police. One cop against a guy with an AK and flimsy body armor trying to protect a group of people is far easier to take out if he can't don actual protective gear.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker


Should patrol Officers be equipped with helmets and plate carriers?


No, they do not need to be more militarized than they already are.

But, they should all dress like this:


Oh wait, they kinda already do:



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

We don't need more heavily armed civilian police.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I have no ill feelings about police having defensive equipment to protect their body. It's probably going to be ramped up now due to recent events.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Officers already have access to patrol carbines and body armor.

North Hollywood. Columbine. Dallas. The list goes on of times the police were outgunned in an incident. Just as there is a list of times the police had superior firepower.

Gonna have a hard time getting agencies to give up their carbines when cops keep getting killed by carbines.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
I just wonder if people would feel comfortable having officers walking around or standing on street corners with this kind of armor and maybe assault rifles as standard.

I mean isn't that what SWAT are supposd to be for? If an officer thinks the situation is deadly then call SWAT and fall back?

I think I would actually find it threatening to see and I don't think I would feel comfortable.


Swat is for high risk situations but an ambush does not give them the chance to be aware that it is high risk until it is too late.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

This action would only serve to further the militarization of the police forces, and thus exacerbate/escalate the already untenable situation extant between the police and (a growing segment of) the public.

It is, in fact, symptomatic of the exactly opposite of what needs to be done.

For reasons both real and imagined, a large segment of the US population fear the forces of the police.

Over the decades, that fear, as so often is the case, has morphed into distrust and, in my cases, outright anger.

Consider how many Americans feel about Jihadi terrorists.

The emotions are very similar.

And these emotions almost never lead to sound, rational decisions and/or actions.

Now, consider how the police forces represent the other side of the coin, so to speak.

Confronted, on a day to day basis by a public that is assumed to be hostile due to decades of incidental injustices, both perceived and (admittedly in some cases) real, the police are faced with what they must perceive to be potentially violent interactions with every contact.

They must live in a state of constant vigilance, arising out of a state of constant fear.

And as we have said, fear gives way to distrust, and eventually, often, to anger.

And neither fear, nor anger, lead to positive outcomes.


We need to de-escalate, both sides of the equation.


I suppose you are right in the grand scheme of things. Outfitting every Officer may not make sense statistically. If it gets too bad though, the National Guard will step in and they already have all of the high speed gear.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I'm against the militarization of the police ie the Police State Industrial Complex.

What I cant understand is why so many cops dont at-least wear their vests.

edit on 17-7-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I'm not a cop.

Currently working contract security while I go to school.

I have an AR500 Urban Go plate carrier and armor inserts. I also have one of my helmets from the army.

I keep it around just in case.

Should they be issued to them? Yes. Should they wear the stuff ALL the time? No.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join