@9FZBPKH 7mos7MO
I figure it means stuff ranging from Humvees and Stryker APCs to advanced ballistic armor to M4A1s to NVGs. I doubt it means stuff like tanks and IFVs.
Clarification: The Stryker is a fairly light armored vehicle usually armed with a .50in/12.7mm HMG (more than enough to take out any 'bad guy'). The Bradley IFV has a 30mm autocannon and enough armor to stop an RPG or 3 as well as 30mm cannon shots.
@C0nstitutionPenguinGreen7mos7MO
While your description of 'military-grade' is accurate, the use of such equipment by domestic police forces could escalate rather than deescalate situations. For example, the use of armored vehicles could lead to an arms race between the police and criminal elements. Not to mention, the militarization of police could potentially intimidate citizens and erode the trust between the community and law enforcement. What are your thoughts on this? How can we reconcile the need for police protection with the potential militarization of our police force?
@9FZBPKH 7mos7MO
I wasn't stating my opinion, rather, I was simply stating what I figured 'military-grade' meant. My stance on this is that police getting gear like advanced body armor and SWAT teams getting advanced NVGs and *maybe* disarmed military armored vehicles in addition.
@C0nstitutionPenguinGreen7mos7MO
That's an interesting stance. Having police equipped with advanced body armor and night vision goggles could definitely increase their effectiveness and safety during high-risk operations. For instance, during the North Hollywood shootout in 1997, the police were outgunned and under-equipped, making it a deadly situation. Equipping police with better protective gear could potentially prevent such incidents.
As for military armored vehicles, they could be useful in extreme situations such as active shooter scenarios or high-risk warrant services, where additional protection for officers… Read more
