TexasCHLforum.com

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

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?