TexasCHLforum.com

The problem isn't them HAVING the equipment for contingency use. The problem is that most of the time, once they have it they feel they have to use it just to prove they needed it.

That's how the overuse of SWAT teams got out of hand. Got to justify the money spent.

The equipment that was obtained here was given to them through a grant program. It didn't cost the tax payers a dime. I've only seen it actually used once, rest of the time it's used in parades and local events for show.

nightmare69 wrote:The equipment that was obtained here was given to them through a grant program. It didn't cost the tax payers a dime. I've only seen it actually used once, rest of the time it's used in parades and local events for show.

Didn't cost the taxpayers a dime? So this equipment magically appeared without the American citizen being forced to pay for it through taxation?

bblhd672 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:The equipment that was obtained here was given to them through a grant program. It didn't cost the tax payers a dime. I've only seen it actually used once, rest of the time it's used in parades and local events for show.

Didn't cost the taxpayers a dime? So this equipment magically appeared without the American citizen being forced to pay for it through taxation?

I'm not going to dig that far into it. It didn't come out the the dept, city, or county's budget.

It seems like the order is/ was revised.

Trump to restore program sending surplus military weapons, equipment to police
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... dfc8870840

Maybe the gubmint ought to melt down all the surplus and build more tin cans for the skimmers to use for merchant ship targets.

G.A. Heath wrote:As usual I see both sides. I feel that certain equipment, that has been properly demilitarized in many cases, is acceptable. My rule of thumb is that the vast majority of (read all) military gear should not be placed in law enforcement hands unless it is offered for sale to the public in the exact same configuration.

I was going to post the exact same thing. If it is OK for police to possess something, then it should be OK for any law abiding citizen to possess the same thing.

Pawpaw wrote:The problem isn't them HAVING the equipment for contingency use. The problem is that most of the time, once they have it they feel they have to use it just to prove they needed it.

That's how the overuse of SWAT teams got out of hand. Got to justify the money spent.

These are my sentiments as well. Use them when it hits the fan not for no knock warrants. Or like the Waco bomb squad because someone abandoned a van and you want to show off

Pawpaw wrote:The problem isn't them HAVING the equipment for contingency use. The problem is that most of the time, once they have it they feel they have to use it just to prove they needed it.

That's how the overuse of SWAT teams got out of hand. Got to justify the money spent.

I think Pawpaw and I are thinking along the same lines.

Yes, just like SWAT teams were (and still are) a good idea for their original purpose, they have become waaaaay overused, IMHO. If a department HAS a SWAT team, they're going to USE that SWAT team. Often whether it's tactically called for or not.

That's my same fear with much of this military equipment: even if the local department gets it for free through grants, those departments are going to have a desire to use that equipment, so they will find a "need" to use that equipment.

As I said in my original post; I'm not against this program ENTIRELY. Some of it is just fine with me - ballistic vests, for one example. I'm ok with that. But due to the type of equipment that is available in this program, I just think we need to go at this VERY slowly and with great consideration and some kind of oversight - not like a kid running wild in a toy store!

Just saw this on Fox News. Looks like John Lott is all for it.

President Trump’s approach of protecting police and make it easier for them to protect Americans couldn’t come sooner.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/ ... ement.html

I.E., if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.



Jeff B.

thatguyoverthere wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08 ... -says.html

The Trump administration is preparing to lift an Obama-era policy that restricted surplus military equipment from being used by local law enforcement agencies.

The government program, which allowed local police to use military equipment such as armored vehicles, firearms, ammunition and grenade launchers, had been curtailed when President Obama signed an executive order in 2015 banning it.

I used to see no problem with cops obtaining equipment designed for use in war. I'm a little older and (hopefully) a little wiser, now I DO see a problem with it - at least some of it.

Don't get me wrong; I support the police; I support law & order; the police do need to be able to do their jobs. But (in my opinion) cops don't need grenade launchers and tanks. (See the book: "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces")

I'm surprised that I find myself actually agreeing with the Obama administration in this case. But I think we need to take a very hard look at this policy of giving real "weapons of war" to police departments for use against American citizens.

What do you think?

That was a great book. I understand and can see where police could have potential uses for this kind of equipment; so I'm not entirely against them having it. But..... when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail, and so now, policing needs a thorough overhaul. I would feel a WHOLE lot better about local gov't having that kind of stuff, if I was also allowed to have it (better yet, have it donated to me by gov't).

1. Using SWAT to serve common warrants is asking for trouble.
2. Using SWAT to kick down doors to serve warrants for non-violent possession of small amounts of drugs is asking for trouble.
3. If you HAVE to go arrest someone, just wait for him to come outside! It's not that hard to figure out.
4. STOP with the asset forfeiture nonsense!
5. RESTORE accountability. STOP shielding shoddy work products and lazy police from consequences. If a cop shoots and kills an innocent homeowner because police served a no-knock warrant at the wrong address, and the homeowner protected his property, that cop should go down for murder.....JUST LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN would have to face. If police go to prison for killing innocent civilians, maybe they'll start exercising due diligence before kicking down doors.

Yes, some of these things requirements might make a cop's job harder - but they will ALSO restore trust and repair the damage done by shoddy police work. And I freely concede that not every dept that receives this kind of stuff from the feds is going to abuse it. Although I've never seen it, my guess is that my local PD has an APC of some kind or other. But local police here don't relate to the population in an aggressive manner, so it's a non-issue. Effective policing requires the cooperation and good will of the community in which they police. In fact, I just found this image of Grapevine's armored vehicle.....first time I've ever seen it. Why? Because the GPD doesn't make unwanted headlines for itself by acting like jack wagons:

SRO1911 wrote:not exactly the topic, but I spent most of this evening working on the hmmv our fire department just bought (hmmv's stink btw).
it will effectively fill a very specific need for us, and do it far cheaper than the next best commercial alternative.

if there is a clear need for the equipment, and it is used appropriately - I see no problem.

We spent more time fixing them than we did driving them in the Corps...keep a good stock of CV boots on-hand...

RogueUSMC wrote:

SRO1911 wrote:not exactly the topic, but I spent most of this evening working on the hmmv our fire department just bought (hmmv's stink btw).
it will effectively fill a very specific need for us, and do it far cheaper than the next best commercial alternative.

if there is a clear need for the equipment, and it is used appropriately - I see no problem.

We spent more time fixing them than we did driving them in the Corps...keep a good stock of CV boots on-hand...

I had no idea. Civilians are led to believe that the HMMV is a nearly indestructible beast. So much for propaganda.