Should patrol Officers be equipped with helmets and plate carriers?

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I understand that, but these kind of events are not that common?

Should the police ditch patrol cars and drive around in tanks, just in case?

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I understand that, but these kind of events are not that common?

Should the police ditch patrol cars and drive around in tanks, just in case?

In some neighborhoods, that may be a good idea. Until the haters and criminal elements are dealt with, they may have no choice.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I understand that, but these kind of events are not that common?

Should the police ditch patrol cars and drive around in tanks, just in case?

In some neighborhoods, that may be a good idea. Until the haters and criminal elements are dealt with, they may have no choice.

When your newest tool is a hammer,

Your world becomes suddenly filled with nails.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I'm going to say no. While I don't support people hunting down cops and killing them, I do want the police to feel vulnerable.

What's the saying? God made man, Colt made them equal?

The police will be less likely to subjugate people when they see citizens as equals rather than adversaries in a war on the streets.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
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.

They do wear their vests. They wear soft body armor which is designed to stop the most common threat, handguns. Not rifles.

Giving up some of that military equipment would probably more than enough pay for the extra body armor.
But they won't do that because they want everything they can get their hands on to use against the people that they are sworn to protect.
If it came down to a shiny new armored truck and body armor the ones in charge would pick the truck because they aren't the ones out there in danger.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

If things are that bad, that full battle gear is required by regular officers, rather than SWAT or other specialised law enforcement agents, then I believe it would be a better idea to put the military into play, the national guard, rather than putting police officers in that situation.

The reason I say this, is that the police officers who have NOT gone into the job as a power trip, have not shot cuffed suspects in the back while they were on the floor, have not shot unarmed persons, the officers who are basically as damned near to perfect at their jobs as can be, are probably not trained in the use of, or particularly familiar with, this sort of kit. Adding variables like unfamiliar gear to the already difficult job of frontline policing is not going to help matters.

Further to that, the police are not a paramilitary organisation, and have no business playing soldier. If soldiers are needed, then soldiers should be provided. But police are not soldiers. Even the ones who have been to war and come home again, should not consider themselves soldiers while about the duties of a law enforcer.

The two areas of expertise should be RIGIDLY split apart from one another, never mixed, never interchanged, never used one for another.

a reply to: angeldoll

Or Iron Man?

Sorry, wrong post!

Absolutely not, consider this...the police respond to recent attacks by upgrading the equipment they use, then in return wouldn't "would be attackers" upgrade their equipment as well? Since carbines would no longer be effective just imagine IED's going off in a city near you. As someone else already said beat cops are essentially first responders and upon arriving at a situation of being outgunned they call in SWAT as dictated by the type of threat being faced. Cops should be willing and able to accept the risk that comes with their job instead of overreacting in many cases out of FEAR for their own safety. If a person is so scared of the job they volunteered for that they indiscriminately shoot civilians then maybe they should not be doing that job. Furthermore statistically speaking cops don't even make the top 10 list of dangerous jobs yet act like they are being killed in the hundreds...it needs to stop, serioulsy.

Most dangerous jobs in America

POLICE DO NOT NEED TO BE EVEN MORE MILITARIZED THAN THEY ALREADY ARE!!!

Yes, not only should they have body armour and assault rifles but I also think they should have tanks and air support when patrolling dangerous ghettos.

Yeah! if a common man has the permission to buy plate carrier and armour inserts then why not a cop? However, if you have the plan to join police force then hopefully you are aware of risks also. I think there would be some codes about the selection of body armour for police and security agencies.

Recently, my husband who is not a cop or army man looking to get a Plate carrier and reading here. I was just shocked. When I asked, he told me it is for security.

a reply to: queenofswords

Should law enforcement officers be equipped with plate carrier and helmet? Yes.

Most already have vests and gear in the cruisers.
But that's not anything different than an active shooter response kit.

Law enforcement equal, must change to be effective against criminals using better equipment.

Look at the 1920s mobsters, and how they outgunned and out drove police, because of the difference in equipment.

Police must adapt to the evolving criminal ways, so they dont become ineffective.

Law enforcement are not trained for counter terrorism. They are law enforcement, not a strike team. Yes, police have swat. But that's not counter terrorism. It's hostage rescue mostly, with active shooter response only recently being added.

Now having said that, there are often times many prior service military who join the leo community.

They as individuals, may have some counter terrorism training and or experience.

Do we need counter terrorism training for Leo's?
Yes.

Yes they do need it, but how much money can a Podunk backwoods small town police department afford to spend for a handful of deputy cops who may never see anything worse than the local drunk peeing on granny O'Reilly...

Larger population areas, which have higher tendencies of violence, could possibly use a different style swat team. Maybe a swat qualified team of officers who are all prior service, or have counter terrorism backgrounds.

These people who have said experience, are an invaluable asset to our populated areas. Age isn't even a factor, older men and women will have the experience, so even if unable to operate, they can assist or train and advise.

I haven't conducted a counter terror operation in about 12 years, since the surge in 2007.

Maybe I'm not exactly current with tactics, techniques and procedures. But I can guarantee my experience, is better than Joe blows who has zero.

I do track that information, it's become habit for me now where it was once a hobby. I can talk about terrorists and their groups, like most men talk sports.

I know terrorist groups the way average guys know football teams etc. I couldn't tell you who's playing in the Superbowl this weekend.

But I do know what aj shabab is up to, or where Hezbollah are located, and the difference them and hamass.

I know the tactics AQIZ use versus the Taliban, although I've only engaged AQIZ.

Point is, local "law enforcement" officers do know what they're signed up for, protecting and serving the community.

I'll bet my left nut, the majority of Leo's are not thinking they will face terrorists as a part of what they signed up for. Maybe more so now, than ever, it may happen. But probably for big city cops over small town one.

Thats not to say the small town may be less prepared, they could have a whole Dept of Green Berets. Who knows.

But unless there's an exception, police are not counter terror. Even the FBI is not counter terror.

I've spoke directly with FBI about terrorism, and they told me domestic terror camps, are a military issue not theirs. FBI hands are tied, up to the point that unless the terrorist is committing the crime, they can't do anything about it.

Imagine that, a federal bureau of investigation, that can't even investigate...

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

Are you talking about wearing all the time or having access to in their vehicles?

I would be all for this in vehicles. More tools in the box increases options.

However wearing plates all day and carrying rifles would make doing 99% of their job more difficult.

How do you go hands on with someone if you're carrying a rifle?
What about chasing a suspect or going over fences etc when you're weighed down with plates?
These are things they do every day.