3 ms·
I'm actually kind of appalled that you think a handgun justifies not only arming police departments with military surplus, but also the use of them. Unlike in
by jack_h 7y ago
I'm actually kind of appalled that you think a handgun justifies not only arming police departments with military surplus, but also the use of them.
Unlike in a military conflict where the combatants are actively trying to create casualties in enemy forces and all the horrors that entails, the police have a lot more things to consider. That's why in a high speed chase police tend to back off and track the suspect from the air rather than endanger the public more. However, by your logic if they knew the suspect had a handgun they would be justified in using a surplus drone or gunship to just destroy the vehicle with little regard to anything else.
Force escalation is not defensible for civilians, why on earth is it acceptable for the police?
- dragontamer 7y ago> I'm actually kind of appalled that you think a handgun justifies not only arming police departments with military surplus, but also the use of them. My argument is a bit more subtle than that. The military surplus culture is IMO due to local-police departments trying to out-compete their local rivals. If you're a Police Officer candidate, with a criminal law bachelors, aiming to join a Police department... which one do you pick? * Dangerous area with military-grade weapons for officers? * Dangerous area without military grade weapons for officers? That's where the fundamental issue comes in. Police departments want to attract the best candidates, and the military surplus items provide an aura of protection, as well as assurances of a "Police-culture".