?Is Everybody Blind??: City Council Meeting Erupts in Applause After Retired Marine Issues Dire Warning About U.S. ?Building a Domestic Army? [updated] | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

I think this another good article building on the theme on here how our local police are starting to look like a standing army.

I've noticed it and find it worrisome to say the least.

So his point is that we're building an police-army in the US because officers are given protective gear identical to what soldiers are issued in combat zones?

 

A few thoughts:

 

1) I don't imagine there are many (if any) policemen in the US that wear 45 pound plate armor jackets and Kevlar helmets on any given day. When the stuff hits the fan, I can imagine the would go for the riot gear, but I'm yet to ever witness any police officers doing any kind of normal patrolling in that dress.

 

2) If I were one of the Boston/Massachusetts police officers involved in the chase of the Tsarnaev brothers, where I was being shot at and had homemade explosives being lobbed at my vehicle...I would want to be wearing the plate armor, Kevlar and other protective gear that our soldiers are given. If I were involved in the ensuing manhunt for Dzhokhar and was being shot at from a cornered, angry, scared, and armed terrorist...I would want to be wearing the plate armor, Kevlar and other protective gear that our soldiers are given.

 

3) If I were one of the police officers involved in the

where two bank robbers came equipped with their own body armor, fully automatic AK-47's, and 2000+ rounds of ammunition...I would want to be wearing the plate armor, Kevlar and other protective gear that our soldiers are given.

 

4) If I were one of the police officers reporting to the active scene of the shootings at Columbine, Case Western Reserve, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, or Aurora...I would want to be wearing the plate armor, Kevlar and other protective gear that our soldiers are given.

I've noticed it and find it worrisome to say the least.

 

Why is it worrisome?

 

Things have happened in the past (Colonels_Wear_Blue mentioned a lot of the events) that have required police to adapt and change. For example, many patrol officers are now issued rifles, because a pistol won't cut it against a shooter with body armor and sometimes "SWAT" teams are minutes/hours away.

Why is it worrisome?

 

Things have happened in the past (Colonels_Wear_Blue mentioned a lot of the events) that have required police to adapt and change. For example, many patrol officers are now issued rifles, because a pistol won't cut it against a shooter with body armor and sometimes "SWAT" teams are minutes/hours away.

So we have named a very small amount of events to prove breaking the constitution makes sense ? Arming local police force with military weapons and no one is worried while people want to restrict regular Americans of weapons. Seems unreasonable.

So we have named a very small amount of events to prove breaking the constitution makes sense ? Arming local police force with military weapons and no one is worried while people want to restrict regular Americans of weapons. Seems unreasonable.

 

Breaking the constitution? What are you talking about?

 

Also I'd be willing to bet most police officers support the 2nd amendment.

What should really scare folks is that this guy was once a high ranking officer in our armed forces.

 

I am sure that when he was a Marine the gentleman had Dress Blue uniforms as well as his combat gear. I suspect that he would have found that uniform to be lacking in any field operation, yet he suggests that police officers tasked with similar duties are somehow wrong for properly equipping themselves and for being prepared for worse case scenario situations.

 

This guy is a doomsday anti government goofball, and the article comes from a rag that caters to his kind. The Marine hook catches our eye but this goof has zero credibility.

So we have named a very small amount of events to prove breaking the constitution makes sense ? Arming local police force with military weapons and no one is worried while people want to restrict regular Americans of weapons. Seems unreasonable.

 

What military style weapons are they being given? I've yet to see police officers patrolling the streets with any thing that most civilians don't have access to as well.

What should really scare folks is that this guy was once a high ranking officer in our armed forces.

 

I am sure that when he was a Marine the gentleman had Dress Blue uniforms as well as his combat gear. I suspect that he would have found that uniform to be lacking in any field operation, yet he suggests that police officers tasked with similar duties are somehow wrong for properly equipping themselves and for being prepared for worse case scenario situations.

 

This guy is a doomsday anti government goofball, and the article comes from a rag that caters to his kind. The Marine hook catches our eye but this goof has zero credibility.

 

This post quit making sense when you said police had similar work to a Marine. Fail.

What military style weapons are they being given? I've yet to see police officers patrolling the streets with any thing that most civilians don't have access to as well.

 

Someone commentated without reading the article.

 

Someone commentated without reading the article.

 

He's upset because the police (during the Boston marathon bombing hunt for the suspects) had as much gear as he did while he was in Iraq.

 

The problem I have is, why shouldn't they? Did you see anyone out in full tactical fear DURING the marathon? No. You saw regular uniformed boston police responding after the bombings. Once the hunt started and the suspects started shooting and hurling pipe bombs, the "swat" teams arrived. What happened after they were caught? Back to uniformed patrol officers.

 

Ill ask again. Why shouldn't those who are risking their lives HERE during a terrorist attack, shoot out etc, be equipped to stop those who want to kill?

 

His other gripe, which wasn't mentioned all that much, was the new truck the police requested. Again, I doubt this is something that will be used in every day police work.

Why is it worrisome?

 

Things have happened in the past (Colonels_Wear_Blue mentioned a lot of the events) that have required police to adapt and change. For example, many patrol officers are now issued rifles, because a pistol won't cut it against a shooter with body armor and sometimes "SWAT" teams are minutes/hours away.

It's worrisome because of all the changes we've had since 9/11 and the things the government has been doing since. The second amendment has been under attack on and off and that will continue until they get their way, the Patriot Act has way too much power, the NSA seems to do what they want. We hear talk about RFID chips, drones, spy satellites, militarized police all in the name of safety, but how much is too much? People are willing to hand over billions of taxpayer money, give up personal freedoms, sacrifice constitutional rights to feel safe. You bring up Boston, with all that we've passed and allowed all in the name of safety since 9/11, how did it stop the Boston bombings from happening? Despite all the sacrifices, a 26 year old and a 19 year old were able to (with surveillance cameras in the area and 2 bomb sweeps) set off two makeshift bombs killing 3 people and injuring 264 others and elude hundreds of police, bomb-sniffing dogs and federal agents for nearly 5 days resulting in a virtual martial law lock down of thousands of Americans and the answer for some is to militarize the police. I don't see that doing anything to keep us safer and down the road I see more freedoms lost. There has to be a better way.

It's worrisome because of all the changes we've had since 9/11 and the things the government has been doing since. The second amendment has been under attack on and off and that will continue until they get their way, the Patriot Act has way too much power, the NSA seems to do what they want. We hear talk about RFID chips, drones, spy satellites, militarized police all in the name of safety, but how much is too much? People are willing to hand over billions of taxpayer money, give up personal freedoms, sacrifice constitutional rights to feel safe. You bring up Boston, with all that we've passed and allowed all in the name of safety since 9/11, how did it stop the Boston bombings from happening? Despite all the sacrifices, a 26 year old and a 19 year old were able to (with surveillance cameras in the area and 2 bomb sweeps) set off two makeshift bombs killing 3 people and injuring 264 others and elude hundreds of police, bomb-sniffing dogs and federal agents for nearly 5 days resulting in a virtual martial law lock down of thousands of Americans and the answer for some is to militarize the police. I don't see that doing anything to keep us safer and down the road I see more freedoms lost. There has to be a better way.

Anyone willing to risk their own life is capable of committing a similar crime, no law or preparation can stop every lunatic out there. As far as all of the money spent not making us any safer...technology was used to ID these guys from video surveillance, they were planning additional attacks which were thwarted due them being caught in a relatively quick time frame. Remember how during 9/11 there was so much confusion and lack of coordination from all of the first responders having different communication systems that didn't allow them to communicate, didn't seem to have that problem this time and that's partially due to the changes and upgrades in communications that was a lesson learned during 9/11.

It's worrisome because of all the changes we've had since 9/11 and the things the government has been doing since. The second amendment has been under attack on and off and that will continue until they get their way' date=' the Patriot Act has way too much power, the NSA seems to do what they want. We hear talk about RFID chips, drones, spy satellites, militarized police all in the name of safety, but how much is too much? People are willing to hand over billions of taxpayer money, give up personal freedoms, sacrifice constitutional rights to feel safe. You bring up Boston, with all that we've passed and allowed all in the name of safety since 9/11, how did it stop the Boston bombings from happening? Despite all the sacrifices, a 26 year old and a 19 year old were able to (with surveillance cameras in the area and 2 bomb sweeps) set off two makeshift bombs killing 3 people and injuring 264 others and elude hundreds of police, bomb-sniffing dogs and federal agents for nearly 5 days resulting in a virtual martial law lock down of thousands of Americans and the answer for some is to militarize the police. I don't see that doing anything to keep us safer and down the road I see more freedoms lost. There has to be a better way.[/quote']

 

You are combining a lot of different topics into one.

 

Ill stick to the police "militarization" issue.

 

The equipment I've read about isn't really about preventing crime. The rifles, trucks, and other tactical gear issued is being used by special units in high risk/dangerous situations. Like I pointed out before, at the Boston marathon the first police you saw responding were uniformed boston police officers. Once the two terrorists murdered the police officer, and then started shooting it out with police and throwing pipe bombs at police they escalated it even more. But even then, I believe the first officers involved in the shoot out were regular uniformed police. The "swat" teams were used during the man hunt later.

 

Having the tools they had may have led to the capture of the suspects faster but we will never know. What I do know is I'd rather the good guys have the weapons ( I'm talking about rifles, not bazookas) and tactical gear to protect themselves rather than sending them into a rifle fight with a .40 pistol and a vest that won't even slow down a round from an AR.

 

Do I think all officers should walk around at all times with AR's and camo? No. But that isn't what happens anyways.

You are combining a lot of different topics into one.

 

Ill stick to the police "militarization" issue.

 

The equipment I've read about isn't really about preventing crime. The rifles, trucks, and other tactical gear issued is being used by special units in high risk/dangerous situations. Like I pointed out before, at the Boston marathon the first police you saw responding were uniformed boston police officers. Once the two terrorists murdered the police officer, and then started shooting it out with police and throwing pipe bombs at police they escalated it even more. But even then, I believe the first officers involved in the shoot out were regular uniformed police. The "swat" teams were used during the man hunt later.

 

Having the tools they had may have led to the capture of the suspects faster but we will never know. What I do know is I'd rather the good guys have the weapons ( I'm talking about rifles, not bazookas) and tactical gear to protect themselves rather than sending them into a rifle fight with a .40 pistol and a vest that won't even slow down a round from an AR.

 

Do I think all officers should walk around at all times with AR's and camo? No. But that isn't what happens anyways.

Its very simple arming the police like the military is a way around laws meant to stop the military from policing regular citizens . Swat has gotten out of control.