Violent crime has been decreasing steadily for decades. The problem I have is if violent crime has been decreasing, why is military gear needed for law enforcement? Do they really need to wear camouflage? The image some law enforcement is projecting to it's citizens is a Police State when you have Humvees and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles rolling down main street USA:
In 2013, an estimated 1,163,146 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 4.4 percent from the 2012 estimate. When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) There were an estimated 367.9 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2013, a rate that declined 5.1 percent when compared with the 2012 estimated rate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.) Aggravated assaults accounted for 62.3 percent of violent crimes reported to law enforcement in 2013. Robbery offenses accounted for 29.7 percent of violent crime offenses; rape (legacy definition) accounted for 6.9 percent; and murder accounted for 1.2 percent. (Based on Table 1.)
How does the slow improvement of the violent crime rate demonstrate that bullet resistant vehicles being available for free to law enforcement violates citizens rights?
Aren't those pictures from the immediate aftermath of the Boston bombing? The same incident that featured a gun battle with incendiary devices being pitched out of cars at pursuing officers?
