I would like our police to be more strongly armed than "the bad guys." If you were a policeman being shot at, I wager that sitting in an armored vehicle would look pretty good to you.

I don't believe the police are trying to pick off regular citizens one by one. Or kill us from a distance. I understand that some of "the bad guys" have .50 caliber weapons with a few rocket propelled grenades thrown in for spice. That stuff has to be dealt with, somehow.

We don't want our cities that dangerous, but some of them are. Has our government failed? I don't know. What are you talking about? Failure to secure the borders? Failure to eradicate crime? Failure to make everyone nice?

Originally posted by charles1952
I would like our police to be more strongly armed than "the bad guys." If you were a policeman being shot at, I wager that sitting in an armored vehicle would look pretty good to you.

No it wouldn't

I don't believe the police are trying to pick off regular citizens one by one. Or kill us from a distance. I understand that some of "the bad guys" have .50 caliber weapons with a few rocket propelled grenades thrown in for spice. That stuff has to be dealt with, somehow.

Just how real is this threat? How many good guys have been actually shot with a .50 caliber round from a militarized weapon, in say the last 10 years in America?

We don't want our cities that dangerous, but some of them are. Has our government failed? I don't know. What are you talking about? Failure to secure the borders? Failure to eradicate crime? Failure to make everyone nice?

What do you feel is the primary role of Law Enforcement?

Dear Dav1d,

I hope we're not misunderstanding each other from the start. I may not have understood you thoroughly. Let me go through your points and see if we can find agreement.

I would like our police to be more strongly armed than "the bad guys."

I think we're in agreement here.

When bullets are polluting the air around one, looking for cover is always a wise move. I'm just saying that an armored vehicle is a good place to take cover in. Even if there are no bullets, just bricks and molotovs, one wouldn't want to walk into it to calm things down.

I don't believe the police are trying to pick off regular citizens one by one. Or kill us from a distance.

That's still my belief.

How real is the threat of a bad guy using a particular type of weapon? I don't know. Perhaps the police would know. Because those weapons are available in the US, even if in small quantities, it seems reasonable to be prepared to deal with them. And I'm not clear. Let's say there are no RPGs currently in the country. Does that change anything significantly?

I'm still not clear about your question if government has failed. But about the primary role of law enforcement? They have several roles, and I may have different priorities from others, but it seems safe to say that a large role is protecting individual and society from certain types of evil. Society decided some things should not be done and those are called illegal. Some illegal things are truly evil, and society just reaffirmed that by putting those offenses into law. Some other things aren't "evil" in the moral sense, but society has decided they don't want them. Overstaying parking meters, for example. The police are instructed to deal with all of these offenses in ways prescribed by other laws.

I hope I've been clear, but I am often not, so feel free to ask.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Dav1d,

I hope we're not misunderstanding each other from the start. I may not have understood you thoroughly. Let me go through your points and see if we can find agreement.

I would like our police to be more strongly armed than "the bad guys."

I think we're in agreement here.

Yes, but the police are the police, they are NOT the military, and there is a reason that the military are not the police. I believe that reason is still valid.

When bullets are polluting the air around one, looking for cover is always a wise move. I'm just saying that an armored vehicle is a good place to take cover in. Even if there are no bullets, just bricks and molotovs, one wouldn't want to walk into it to calm things down.

From my perspective if the police need an armored vehicle to ride around in to feel safe, then something has seriously failed...

How real is the threat of a bad guy using a particular type of weapon? I don't know. Perhaps the police would know. Because those weapons are available in the US, even if in small quantities, it seems reasonable to be prepared to deal with them. And I'm not clear. Let's say there are no RPGs currently in the country. Does that change anything significantly?

Doing some quick Google searches I don't see a sigificant loss of life, by the police do to being shot by .50 caliber rounds fired from militarized weapons? Do you? Indeed I see far more people dying from freezing in their home say to a lack of funds! They can't afford to heat their home in the winter...

My country has limited funds available, it can't do everything it wants today. So with limited resources is armored vehicles the way we want to go? Do we want to turn the police into the Army, and our cities into a battleground?



With respect,
Dav1d

Dear Dav1d,

Thank you, I think I'm seeing more clearly now. And I have a lot of agreement.

Yes, but the police are the police, they are NOT the military, and there is a reason that the military are not the police. I believe that reason is still valid.

You're absolutely right, and it should stay that way. There is a continuum of threat. Some are more appropriate for the police, some for the military. There are protections against using the military as police (although they are feeble and should be stronger).

Where the problem comes in is at the military end of the police side of the scale. Let me use an example. Say there are a dozen people with weapons in a concrete building being used as a meth lab. The police should be used, but I'd feel safer sending in SEALs, or anti-sniper teams, or an assault company. So there are two compromises I can think of, "muscling up" the police or calling for a military unit. (Assuming the bad guys have supplies and waiting them out doesn't work)

I know this doesn't happen often, but a plan should be in place for when it does. If the police have only handguns, rifles, and vests, they're going to have a tough time in some towns. But these are all exceptional cases, and shouldn't be the basis for policy, but handled on a case by case basis.

From my perspective if the police need an armored vehicle to ride around in to feel safe, then something has seriously failed...

You are absolutely right.

My country has limited funds available, it can't do everything it wants today.

Again, absolutely right. And I especially agree that Homeland Security has no place in the funding. If the citizens of a city or state want it, they can pay for it. I don't like the Federal entanglement.

Do we want to turn the police into the Army, and our cities into a battleground?

Of course not. I'm just not yet convinced that the weapons of the police are what leads to crime. I think the cause varies from one region or state to another, and should be dealt with that way.

That's what I think is the failure of government. Soaking up resources in DC, then spending it foolishly, in a "One size fits all" manner from a framework of using military power.

With respect,
Charles1952