I'm kinda new to some of this so would someone mind explaining to me exactly what is meant by militarization of the local police and why it is perceived as a growing, concerning fact?

No reason for anyone to be nasty or condescending, I'm just curious if its simply an appearance thing? Uniforms look different, appear to be more heavily armed and occasionally show up in vehicles that are more resistant to small arms fire?

I see people bringing up armored vehicles a lot. They aren't "tanks" they are armored personnel carriers. If it helps, think of them as "hard to shoot in or out ofs". They come in handy for extracting wounded officers (without having to, you know, shoot recklessly into wherever the hostile fire might come from to rescue a bleeding cop), transporting rescued hostages and similarly NON-OFFENSIVE actions. An APC adds exactly zero offensive capability. They mount no guns. At all.

I see people bring up tactics, and SWAT teams in particular. SWAT tactics aren't traditional military tactics. A team enters a structure rapidly using distraction and speed to help minimize any violent types inside chance to kill them. They consider a successful mission one where no-one gets shot. Think of this as "search and arrests" because that's the goal.

Traditional military tactics are: fire and maneuver, artillery strikes, bombardment, strafing runs rocket attacks and similar.If it helps, think of these as "shooty-explodey" tactics. Two opposing, uniformed armies would use shooty-expolody tactics almost exclusively and spend VERY LITTLE time entering structures and not shooting the people within. The war on terrorism, thanks to the guerrilla nature of terrorist assholes, has resulted in a shift of military tactics to tactics that are, at times, similar to law enforcement tactics because they have to search out the unmarked enemy from an "innocent" population. Bear in mind they still prefer "shooty-explodey" tactics (much safer) when they can identify the enemy. So, in fact, rather than police tactics being militarized, military tactics are being policizied.

I would be open to the idea that perhaps some anti-drug raids can be heavy handed but I would argue that that would be something to bring up with law makers, probably to the effect that you don't care for anti-drug laws anymore. Can't blame the poor fools trying to enforce the laws for finding ways to make it home that night.

What about other guns and gear? What, pray tell has changed? Look back on history and you'll find that cops of that era, be it the old west, the 40's or the 70's are armed with, roughly, the most advanced and current gear they can get their hands on, because they don't want to die.

Police tactics are written in the blood of these men: ODMP.org
I encourage debate, but if your reason to hate whatever it is you hate is "it makes cops harder to kill" then maybe you should think about what it is about yourself that makes you study on killing cops quite so much.

Also, Bill, no state or local law enforcement agency has RPGs. Rocket Propelled Grenades are strictly in the "shooty-explodey" category and thus are totally off the table. Some do have 37mm and 40mm launchers which they use to propel irritating gasses into places and have probably saved more lives than seatbelts. Flashbangs, or NFDDs, are arguably way less dangerous than the crown vic the cops drove to work that morning and if used properly save lives while hurting no one or no thing.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Just conspiracy theorist were harmed. No real law abiding American has anything to fear from over zealous , heavily armed , officers.

Bill, with all due respect, your point of view is shared by a lot of people. I guess I understand the intentions of "most" officers, because I know a lot of them, from PDs and agencies all over the state. Are there a very few arrogant power hungry individuals? Yes there are. There's also a much higher percentage of those who uphold and know the constitution well, serve the public, and genuinely want to protect the innocent. I'm not worried about local law enforcement agencies. They're not the problem. Washington is the problem. And I don't trust any of them.

I'm kinda new to some of this so would someone mind explaining to me exactly what is meant by militarization of the local police and why it is perceived as a growing, concerning fact?

No reason for anyone to be nasty or condescending, I'm just curious if its simply an appearance thing? Uniforms look different, appear to be more heavily armed and occasionally show up in vehicles that are more resistant to small arms fire?

I see people bringing up armored vehicles a lot. They aren't "tanks" they are armored personnel carriers. If it helps, think of them as "hard to shoot in or out ofs". They come in handy for extracting wounded officers (without having to, you know, shoot recklessly into wherever the hostile fire might come from to rescue a bleeding cop), transporting rescued hostages and similarly NON-OFFENSIVE actions. An APC adds exactly zero offensive capability. They mount no guns. At all.

I see people bring up tactics, and SWAT teams in particular. SWAT tactics aren't traditional military tactics. A team enters a structure rapidly using distraction and speed to help minimize any violent types inside chance to kill them. They consider a successful mission one where no-one gets shot. Think of this as "search and arrests" because that's the goal.

Traditional military tactics are: fire and maneuver, artillery strikes, bombardment, strafing runs rocket attacks and similar.If it helps, think of these as "shooty-explodey" tactics. Two opposing, uniformed armies would use shooty-expolody tactics almost exclusively and spend VERY LITTLE time entering structures and not shooting the people within. The war on terrorism, thanks to the guerrilla nature of terrorist assholes, has resulted in a shift of military tactics to tactics that are, at times, similar to law enforcement tactics because they have to search out the unmarked enemy from an "innocent" population. Bear in mind they still prefer "shooty-explodey" tactics (much safer) when they can identify the enemy. So, in fact, rather than police tactics being militarized, military tactics are being policizied.

I would be open to the idea that perhaps some anti-drug raids can be heavy handed but I would argue that that would be something to bring up with law makers, probably to the effect that you don't care for anti-drug laws anymore. Can't blame the poor fools trying to enforce the laws for finding ways to make it home that night.

What about other guns and gear? What, pray tell has changed? Look back on history and you'll find that cops of that era, be it the old west, the 40's or the 70's are armed with, roughly, the most advanced and current gear they can get their hands on, because they don't want to die.

Police tactics are written in the blood of these men: ODMP.org
I encourage debate, but if your reason to hate whatever it is you hate is "it makes cops harder to kill" then maybe you should think about what it is about yourself that makes you study on killing cops quite so much.

Also, Bill, no state or local law enforcement agency has RPGs. Rocket Propelled Grenades are strictly in the "shooty-explodey" category and thus are totally off the table. Some do have 37mm and 40mm launchers which they use to propel irritating gasses into places and have probably saved more lives than seatbelts. Flashbangs, or NFDDs, are arguably way less dangerous than the crown vic the cops drove to work that morning and if used properly save lives while hurting no one or no thing.

Bill, with all due respect, your point of view is shared by a lot of people. I guess I understand the intentions of "most" officers, because I know a lot of them, from PDs and agencies all over the state. Are there a very few arrogant power hungry individuals? Yes there are. There's also a much higher percentage of those who uphold and know the constitution well, serve the public, and genuinely want to protect the innocent. I'm not worried about local law enforcement agencies. They're not the problem. Washington is the problem. And I don't trust any of them.

I'm kinda new to some of this so would someone mind explaining to me exactly what is meant by militarization of the local police and why it is perceived as a growing, concerning fact?

No reason for anyone to be nasty or condescending, I'm just curious if its simply an appearance thing? Uniforms look different, appear to be more heavily armed and occasionally show up in vehicles that are more resistant to small arms fire?

I see people bringing up armored vehicles a lot. They aren't "tanks" they are armored personnel carriers. If it helps, think of them as "hard to shoot in or out ofs". They come in handy for extracting wounded officers (without having to, you know, shoot recklessly into wherever the hostile fire might come from to rescue a bleeding cop), transporting rescued hostages and similarly NON-OFFENSIVE actions. An APC adds exactly zero offensive capability. They mount no guns. At all.

I see people bring up tactics, and SWAT teams in particular. SWAT tactics aren't traditional military tactics. A team enters a structure rapidly using distraction and speed to help minimize any violent types inside chance to kill them. They consider a successful mission one where no-one gets shot. Think of this as "search and arrests" because that's the goal.

Traditional military tactics are: fire and maneuver, artillery strikes, bombardment, strafing runs rocket attacks and similar.If it helps, think of these as "shooty-explodey" tactics. Two opposing, uniformed armies would use shooty-expolody tactics almost exclusively and spend VERY LITTLE time entering structures and not shooting the people within. The war on terrorism, thanks to the guerrilla nature of terrorist assholes, has resulted in a shift of military tactics to tactics that are, at times, similar to law enforcement tactics because they have to search out the unmarked enemy from an "innocent" population. Bear in mind they still prefer "shooty-explodey" tactics (much safer) when they can identify the enemy. So, in fact, rather than police tactics being militarized, military tactics are being policizied.

I would be open to the idea that perhaps some anti-drug raids can be heavy handed but I would argue that that would be something to bring up with law makers, probably to the effect that you don't care for anti-drug laws anymore. Can't blame the poor fools trying to enforce the laws for finding ways to make it home that night.

What about other guns and gear? What, pray tell has changed? Look back on history and you'll find that cops of that era, be it the old west, the 40's or the 70's are armed with, roughly, the most advanced and current gear they can get their hands on, because they don't want to die.

Police tactics are written in the blood of these men: ODMP.org
I encourage debate, but if your reason to hate whatever it is you hate is "it makes cops harder to kill" then maybe you should think about what it is about yourself that makes you study on killing cops quite so much.

Also, Bill, no state or local law enforcement agency has RPGs. Rocket Propelled Grenades are strictly in the "shooty-explodey" category and thus are totally off the table. Some do have 37mm and 40mm launchers which they use to propel irritating gasses into places and have probably saved more lives than seatbelts. Flashbangs, or NFDDs, are arguably way less dangerous than the crown vic the cops drove to work that morning and if used properly save lives while hurting no one or no thing.

Jsg
those were some good points. But i believe swat trainging was designed around military tactics. Apc's are/can used offensively. A 40a mil is a grenade launcher. And it doesnt save money to get it for free if it is rarely used and has to be maintained for training purposes only. I dont mean to sound rude, just trying to keep it short cause I'm typing on the phone

You should post more often.

I have a hypothetical scenario.

Scenario: Four militant extremists take control of an elementary school that your child attends. They take everyone hostage, already killed a dozen or so upon entry, barricade themselves inside, and begin executing children one at a time, posting the videos live on YouTube.

Now. You can wait on the military to provide our elite forces to deal with these scumbags(which is not going to happen), or you can rely on the immediate response of highly trained first responders in your local sheriff or police department, who have had tactical building clearance training, and have the equipment and gear to get your child out safely and dispatch the pieces of crap that took them hostage.

Whether you like it or not, this is the world we live in. This scenario is going to happen. It's just a matter of time. The police have taken an oath to serve and protect. Today's means of protection against new threats never before seen in history means we should be more prepared than ever.

The military equipment being received by most local law enforcement agencies doesn't exceed rifles, first aid equipment, and safety equipment. The militarization of local police is not even remotely on the scale it is perceived.

I can guarantee that if a situation like this were to occur you'd want someone who can handle it swiftly to immobilize the threat.

Disclaimer: I'm a God loving, patriotic, constitution supporting, conservative, gun toting finatic.

Drop a half dozen or so tear gas canisters in the HVAC system and shoot them when they come out. No MRAP needed.

Then find the nearest occupied Mosque, chain the doors closed, and burn it to the ground.

If the ragheads start killing our children in our schools there will be a hell unleashed on them they never could have imagined.