My post was more in response to the "What does it look like to you" portion of your question... That doesn't look like Police to me, it looks like military. It doesn't necessarily upset me, I just see it as over kill. Sure there are special circumstances that might call for that kind of gear, but I think it is being over used.

 

Even I'll agree that a situation that calls for a .50 cal would be extremely rare. I'm a supporter of police having all the equipment they need, but I can not find a need for a .50 cal.

I know it seems silly to you hb20. But why do cops need uniforms that look like the military ? They use uniforms in some situations that are ridiculous and eliminate that tactical reason for camo. I can't think of any other reason to have this type of uniforms other than wanted the image of the military. Multiple posters have give dozens of examples of hardware and tactics that make them feel uncomfortable in multiple threads. You just dismiss those examples and continue to say no one has given you any or question there ability to question tactics. It isn't only about hardware but perception. It confuses millions of Americans why the police is looking more and more like the military. When the military and the police force are nothing and should be nothing a like.

 

I find it funny when posters who defend and deny any move of the police to be more like the military and their repeated response is well what experience do you have in those tactics to question them .

 

You know what the police are employees of the American citizen and I have every right to question anything a public employee does if it concerns me. I don't hear the same excuse when a Mayor , a president or congressman are questioned on their ideas or tactics. What experience do any of us have in any of those positions but yet many of us are educated enough to think critically and question politicians decisions and ideas. The next time one of you question Obama or any politician I guess a Democrat response should be a chuckle and say you have no experience in politics .

 

It is just a silly stance and is only used to defend questionable police tactics. If people didn't have opinions or ideas on fields they were never employed in BGP wouldn't exist .

How should they dress Bash?

 

You know why police wear uniforms like that? It's not to look like the military it is because they carry so much crap they need someplace to put it all. Those pockets on the Military looking pants will many times have a tourniquet, basic first aid kit, extra magazines, flex cuffs, a back up weapon, mini flash light and other equipment that will not fit in two regular pockets and a duty belt.

 

Those uniforms have evolved over time to be the most efficient uniform that they can wear in tactical situations, it's not a right wing conspiracy to turn them into the military.

What weapons should police be limited to?

What color uniforms would be preferred?

How many pockets is too many?

Should police be allowed to wear bullet resistant vest?

Should armored vehicles (own by few departments) be junked?

Should police helicopters be grounded?

How should they dress Bash?

 

You know why police wear uniforms like that? It's not to look like the military it is because they carry so much crap they need someplace to put it all. Those pockets on the Military looking pants will many times have a tourniquet, basic first aid kit, extra magazines, flex cuffs, a back up weapon, mini flash light and other equipment that will not fit in two regular pockets and a duty belt.

 

Those uniforms have evolved over time to be the most efficient uniform that they can wear in tactical situations, it's not a right wing conspiracy to turn them into the military.

 

There is no tactical advantage to camo in an urban setting. I'm not saying those things you listed aren't true , but I'm not naive enough not to think if the camo has no tactical advantage the part of it is the perception they want to put out there. There is an old saying perception is reality.

What weapons should police be limited to?

What color uniforms would be preferred?

How many pockets is too many?

Should police be allowed to wear bullet resistant vest?

Should armored vehicles (own by few departments) be junked?

Should police helicopters be grounded?

 

First the federal government shouldn't be involved in local police departments.

 

Secondly I do think a lot of armored vehicles are over kill

 

Third as stated multiple times SWAT use has continue to rise for non violent warrants and SWAT in general is used to much. But I know I have no right to question police tactics.

I know it seems silly to you hb20. But why do cops need uniforms that look like the military ? They use uniforms in some situations that are ridiculous and eliminate that tactical reason for camo. I can't think of any other reason to have this type of uniforms other than wanted the image of the military. Multiple posters have give dozens of examples of hardware and tactics that make them feel uncomfortable in multiple threads. You just dismiss those examples and continue to say no one has given you any or question there ability to question tactics. It isn't only about hardware but perception. It confuses millions of Americans why the police is looking more and more like the military. When the military and the police force are nothing and should be nothing a like.

 

I find it funny when posters who defend and deny any move of the police to be more like the military and their repeated response is well what experience do you have in those tactics to question them .

 

You know what the police are employees of the American citizen and I have every right to question anything a public employee does if it concerns me. I don't hear the same excuse when a Mayor , a president or congressman are questioned on their ideas or tactics. What experience do any of us have in any of those positions but yet many of us are educated enough to think critically and question politicians decisions and ideas. The next time one of you question Obama or any politician I guess a Democrat response should be a chuckle and say you have no experience in politics .

 

It is just a silly stance and is only used to defend questionable police tactics. If people didn't have opinions or ideas on fields they were never employed in BGP wouldn't exist .

There are good reasons why military uniforms look the way that they do and the same reasons apply to police department SWAT teams. First of all, if you dress like mall cops, then you will command the respect of a mall cop (no offense to mall cops). More importantly, officers in camo uniforms that blend into an urban setting do not make good targets and are more suitable for stealth assaults in hostage situations, etc.

 

There are situations where police officers are more effective when they stand out from their environment, but military-style uniforms have their place too.

First the federal government shouldn't be involved in local police departments.

 

Secondly I do think a lot of armored vehicles are over kill

 

Third as stated multiple times SWAT use has continue to rise for non violent warrants and SWAT in general is used to much. But I know I have no right to question police tactics.

I agree that the Federal Government should not be running local law enforcement and as far as I know they don't.

 

So your OK with the weapons they have, the uniforms, and some armored vehicles?

I think once you get out of the Metro areas you will find that SWAT is rarely deployed though out the year.

I agree that the Federal Government should not be running local law enforcement and as far as I know they don't.

 

So your OK with the weapons they have, the uniforms, and some armored vehicles?

I think once you get out of the Metro areas you will find that SWAT is rarely deployed though out the year.

 

Weapons don't bug me as long as you or I could purchase them. That has never been my issue.

 

My issue has been with the Fed giving local LE equipment and use of SWAT. Also Military style uniforms give off a bad perception.

I know it seems silly to you hb20. But why do cops need uniforms that look like the military ? They use uniforms in some situations that are ridiculous and eliminate that tactical reason for camo. I can't think of any other reason to have this type of uniforms other than wanted the image of the military. Multiple posters have give dozens of examples of hardware and tactics that make them feel uncomfortable in multiple threads. You just dismiss those examples and continue to say no one has given you any or question there ability to question tactics. It isn't only about hardware but perception. It confuses millions of Americans why the police is looking more and more like the military. When the military and the police force are nothing and should be nothing a like.

 

I find it funny when posters who defend and deny any move of the police to be more like the military and their repeated response is well what experience do you have in those tactics to question them .

 

You know what the police are employees of the American citizen and I have every right to question anything a public employee does if it concerns me. I don't hear the same excuse when a Mayor , a president or congressman are questioned on their ideas or tactics. What experience do any of us have in any of those positions but yet many of us are educated enough to think critically and question politicians decisions and ideas. The next time one of you question Obama or any politician I guess a Democrat response should be a chuckle and say you have no experience in politics .

 

It is just a silly stance and is only used to defend questionable police tactics. If people didn't have opinions or ideas on fields they were never employed in BGP wouldn't exist .

 

I think it is a silly stance to condemn something you have no experience in. It takes no specialized training to be a politician. Would you do the same of paramedics, doctors, nurses, firefighters, etc.?

Do you have experience in police tactics? If you do this next sentence does not apply to you. It's funny to me that people with no experience in police tactics, people that have never had to work a riot or go in the front door of a house, act like they know what tactics police should or should not use. You are entitled to your opinion, but would you go into a doctors office and tell them how to do their job? I mean statistics show us that Doctors kill far more people in the United States every year by mistake than police do...why doesn't anyone tell them how to fix their issues?

 

You are cherry picking numbers that garner a reaction from people. Instead of examining why swat teams have been used more, you automatically assume they're just being over used. Never mind the fact that our world is changing quickly (terrorist attacks, mass shootings, etc) and that many departments that did not have a "SWAT" team felt it necessary to do so. They felt it was necessary because guess what people would say if the police do not respond fast enough or efficient enough to the next shooting? They were unprepared. They were flat footed. They failed. People want police fast, and they want them efficient.

 

The fact that they are used more doesn't mean they are used wrong. Mistakes happen, but I would be willing to bet they are few and far between.

 

They are not projecting that they are soldiers. You might perceive that, but there's a reason they have the words "POLICE" written on everything they use. In some places camo works much better for a SWAT team that might have to search/fight etc someone through a wooded area. Other people have pointed out that it helps them differentiate people. Sometimes it's just cheaper and easier to replace if it's damaged.

 

They did not scale up anything. Many people have reported that there was gunfire every night in Ferguson. How many of those came from police? They were pelted with rocks, bricks, bottles and urine...and they did nothing but use non lethal tear gas, and rubber bullets. Many times several warnings were given to disperse or for people to keep moving. Once, even after a bottle landed right next to police in a video I watched, the police waited and gave orders to disperse. After another bottle...they finally started using tear gas. Tear gas is probably far safer for the police and the protesters/looters/rioters considering the next option is probably to go into the crowd. How many fights are going to happen then? How many people have been seriously injured, as a direct result of the police in Ferguson? How many of those people were innocent bystanders?

 

As for the journalists, they are definitely a major part of the problem in Ferguson. They are an absolute embarrassment and some journalists have said that themselves. Many of them have ignored police instructions to disperse when bottles are being thrown, and some have joined the protesters in groups. How are the police supposed to differentiate between protesters, looters, and media...if they're all in one big group? I'm afraid too many "bloggers" are being considered journalists and I'm afraid too many of them forgot that they're not supposed to make themselves part of the story.

Very good post.

I know it seems silly to you hb20. But why do cops need uniforms that look like the military ? They use uniforms in some situations that are ridiculous and eliminate that tactical reason for camo. I can't think of any other reason to have this type of uniforms other than wanted the image of the military. Multiple posters have give dozens of examples of hardware and tactics that make them feel uncomfortable in multiple threads. You just dismiss those examples and continue to say no one has given you any or question there ability to question tactics. It isn't only about hardware but perception. It confuses millions of Americans why the police is looking more and more like the military. When the military and the police force are nothing and should be nothing a like.

 

I find it funny when posters who defend and deny any move of the police to be more like the military and their repeated response is well what experience do you have in those tactics to question them .

 

You know what the police are employees of the American citizen and I have every right to question anything a public employee does if it concerns me. I don't hear the same excuse when a Mayor , a president or congressman are questioned on their ideas or tactics. What experience do any of us have in any of those positions but yet many of us are educated enough to think critically and question politicians decisions and ideas. The next time one of you question Obama or any politician I guess a Democrat response should be a chuckle and say you have no experience in politics .

 

It is just a silly stance and is only used to defend questionable police tactics. If people didn't have opinions or ideas on fields they were never employed in BGP wouldn't exist .

 

The problem is even if I give good reasons for police needing the equipment they have, no one cares. Many on the "militarization" side of things have made their minds up.

 

I don't think police should sacrifice safety ONLY because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. If they are using it wrong, by all means, complain about it. But a lot of the equipment poses absolutely no danger to the American public. Armored trucks? How are those a danger to the public? Are you afraid they will run someone over? They don't drive all that fast. Rifles? Anyone in the United States that isn't a convicted felon can purchase the rifles police carry, as most of them are semi-automatic.

 

There are several different reasons police wear camo and I mentioned many of them above. I'll add that anyone in the US can buy camo...so why shouldn't the police be allowed to?

 

I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. And if the police do something wrong I have no problem with people calling them out on it. But to complain about the police because they look mean, to me, is downright silly. I will add that I don't agree with any police department having a .50 cal on a turret. Completely unnecessary IMO and I'm not sure who approved that.

 

There's a big difference in questioning a mayor or a politician. Their "tactics" have nothing to do with their safety. If you take certain things away from police, you are making them work with less. They will still go to the calls and they will still fight it out with people that want to, but they will have to do it with less equipment because you thought they looked mean.

 

I never said you or anyone else can't question the equipment or police misconduct. I just questioned your qualifications for questioning tactics.

There is no tactical advantage to camo in an urban setting. I'm not saying those things you listed aren't true , but I'm not naive enough not to think if the camo has no tactical advantage the part of it is the perception they want to put out there. There is an old saying perception is reality.

 

Most of the guys I saw wearing camo in Ferguson were St. Louis COUNTY Police. Are there any wooded areas in St. Louis County?

First the federal government shouldn't be involved in local police departments.

 

Secondly I do think a lot of armored vehicles are over kill

 

Third as stated multiple times SWAT use has continue to rise for non violent warrants and SWAT in general is used to much. But I know I have no right to question police tactics.

 

How do you know who is or isn't violent? Just because they're serving a warrant for a non-violent charge doesn't mean the person doesn't have the potential to be violent.

Senator Paul is the only "mainstream" politician I could even consider voting for. He's one who legitimately seems to take a common sense approach to politics. I love it, and if people would give him a fair chance to articulate his stance on the issues, I think he could garner a lot of support from all sides of the political spectrum.

 

And yes, to answer the original question, even though he's a Republican by party name, he's a Libertarian.