Sorry if this is a dupe. I looked and didn't see anything.
Obama bans some military-style equipment provided to police - AOL.com
Obama bans some military-style equipment provided to police - AOL.com
Okay, I'll say it. Why does a police department need an armored vehicle or a plane or drone ? The sheriff's department in Boone County, not exactly a hotbed of social unrest, is the proud owner of one such vehicle. I'm not sure it ever leaves the garage except for an occasional photo op or spot in the annual 4th of July parade.
Let me be clear - This isn't an attack on the Boone County Sheriff. I know, like and voted for Mike Nielson. He only inherited the vehicle from his predecessor. Nonetheless, the question I am compelled to ask is why and how we citizens of Boone came to be so well protected is a good question. I also assume Boone County isn't singularly unique in its inventory of armament.
Our tax dollars paid for these vehicles already and generally PD's get them free. So it's a winner...
So "...(s)ome would argue that the militarization of our police is a huge loser. . . "? Perhaps you might think back to when that "militarization" started to take place? Say, when foreign drug gangs began to take over the drug trade here in the US? When they started using automatic weapons? When they didn't think twice about shooting it out with law enforcement? I wonder whether or not the "Continuum of Force" principle would apply here: when someone uses force against a citizen or a law enforcement officer, the assaultee is allowed to use one step up against the assaulter (as I remember it). If the bad guys are using rifles and automatic weapons, should not the police be allowed to go a step further and utilize heavy armor? That's basically what the militarization of the police is doing.
Not supposed to do what? because it's not "equal?"