re: Should cops have to follow Rules of Engagement?

Are we giving them tanks, armor, more powerful weapons and drones as well?

quote:

---

Are we giving them tanks, armor, more powerful weapons and drones as well?

---

Yes.

Vehicles


Body Armor


Drones

The last thing we need to do is burden Law Enforcement with more training and bureaucracy. We use military tactics because military tactics work and save lives. And yes occasionally a civilian will get raped, and that's an unfortunate side-effect but there has never been a rape-free war fought in the history of mankind. Why should the war on crime be any different?

quote:

---

yes occasionally a civilian will get raped, and that's an unfortunate side-effect but there has never been a rape-free war fought in the history of mankind. Why should the war on crime be any different?

---

pure gold.

quote:

---

. And yes occasionally a civilian will get raped, and that's an unfortunate side-effect but there has never been a rape-free war fought in the history of mankind. Why should the war on crime be any different?

---

First of all I won't look for answers to important questions from someone named after a cheesy 80s movie.

quote:

---

Every patrol vehicle is a tank? I can honestly say I've never seen one IRL.

They all wear swat gear and carry rifles at all times? I can honestly say I've never seen that once IRL.

Is that a missile on that drone? I've never seen a police drone IRL either.

---

You asked "are we giving it to them?", and the answer is unequivocally yes. There are programs designed to push surplus military equipment to local law enforcement; Armored carriers, body armor, weapons, etc... and the locals are only too happy to accept them at steep discounts. This equipment is rationed even to soldiers at wartime, so you could never equip all LEO's simply due to cost and supply. That assertion is a strawman.

And you're right about the drone, luckily I haven't heard of law enforcement weaponizing their drones yet. But I also never dreamed they would need MRAP's so I wouldn't dismiss it.

quote:

---

You asked "are we giving it to them?", and the answer is unequivocally yes. There are programs designed to push surplus military equipment to local law enforcement; Armored carriers, body armor, weapons, etc... and the locals are only too happy to accept them at steep discounts. This equipment is rationed even to soldiers at wartime, so you could never equip all LEO's simply due to cost and supply. That assertion is a strawman.

---

I support these programs too, but what good are all of these tools if the police aren't allowed to use them? When we start demanding warrants and court hearings for every search or forced sexual encounter the police want to perform, how can we truly expect them to keep us safe?

I applaud the commitment you show every time you enter a thread. You're an expert in your field.

I didn't read anything but your title but here is the bottom line. If cops acted line Andy Griffith then they would be killed in 3 months of service. They have to be on guard because potential dangers could be anywhere. If you haven't seen the video of PDSS Vietnam vet who kills the trooper on a normal road stop for no reason then you should. Do some take it over the top and get power hungry? Yes they do. But do we throw the baby out with the bathwater or try to find better cops? An America without cops would be a bad way to go.

quote:

---

I have no problem with a strict ROE when using those advanced weapons and armor. I don't think the typical patrol officer should have to wait until they are shot to engage however. Seems kinda dumb to expect that.

---

We're not far apart on that. I'd just like to see more accountability when that "typical patrol officer's" engagement ultimately results in painful or deadly consequences attributed to his neglect or overly aggressive actions.