5 ms·

The problem with your logic here is it makes the line between police and the military incredibly blurry to the point where police become just another type of mi

The problem with your logic here is it makes the line between police and the military incredibly blurry to the point where police become just another type of military personnel. Maybe if you have criminal activity at the level of needing automatic weapons, then you need military intervention and not police. As many ex-military have pointed out in various forums, even in war situations rules of engagement for soldiers are very clear and strict, which is not true of most police. Soldiers are trained to deal with situations where lethal force and high power weaponry are assumed standard. Police, if they are really to protect and serve, and act as part of the community should be dealing with an entirely different set of tools and skills. A solider and a police officer should be completely different roles. The former should be an expert in using state sanctioned violence to deal with high level threats to public safety and the latter should be a member of the community with the ability to resolve local conflicts and enforce standards agreed upon by that community. You can't reasonably mix these two responsibilities and expect good results.

Balgair 6y ago
> The problem with your logic here is it makes the line between police and the military incredibly blurry to the point where police become just another type of military personnel. Many other countries have Gendarmerie forces that bridge this gap in various ways. The most famous being the RCMP. Other countries mix these responsibilities with varying success, but they do it intentionally. Some have found good success with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie
- cultus 6y ago
  The RCMP isn't a great example for why militarized police are a good idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
- freeone3000 6y ago
  RCMP are regular police everywhere but Ontario and Quebec. RCMP are closer in remit to the US Marshals, but also have the investigatory powers of the FBI. "Gendamarie" isn't inaccurate, but they're not militarized any greater or lesser than the SPVM.
mixedCase 6y ago
How does "protect and serve" not include removing dangerous, violent criminals from society?. To do so you need efficient weaponry and tactics that differ from conventional warfare. Does every police officer need to be equipped with such firepower? No, but police forces around the world facing these threats tend to have an intermediate (or more) group for dealing with threats that fall between petty thievery and terrorist organizations/nation-state level actors.
- watwut 6y ago
  Are you taking about actual real need in cities or a fantasy? It sounds flippant, but other counties don't need such ammo. The murder clearance rates are low, corruption seem to be persistent problem and actual police work does not actually seem to involve attacking actual super armed gangs.
  - mixedCase 6y ago
    Of course I'm talking about an actual real need in cities, it's bewildering to me someone can't even see it as obvious. What country do you live in where there's no need for SWAT-like teams or a straight-up Gendarmerie?
    - watwut 6y ago
      SWAT-like teams are used rarely and they don't buy used arms from military. They are few in numbers. The issue with catching organized criminality is in investigation and dealing with corruption - including police corruption. The whole need to shoot out with them thing does not happen unless the local police is spectacularly bad.
ptero 6y ago
To me, the military should not be a part of any law enforcement for the citizens. In practical terms, "never" is too harsh, but the bar should be very high. When military gets involved in local matters there is a risk that it takes power and holds it for a long time. Sometimes a military junta might be the least bad option, but this is not a path the country should risk taking lightly. There were plenty of countries where gangs possessed and used automatic weapons, from Scandinavia to Germany, from Brazil to former Soviet Union. And that is not even touching Africa. A gang with machine guns is not a reason to ask military to take over law enforcement. My 2c.
- baq 6y ago
  what's the difference between military and police if both look the same and use the same weapons? what's stopping a rebel police chief from taking power in that case instead of some rebel general?

Balgair 6y ago

> The problem with your logic here is it makes the line between police and the military incredibly blurry to the point where police become just another type of military personnel. Many other countries have Gendarmerie forces that bridge this gap in various ways. The most famous being the RCMP. Other countries mix these responsibilities with varying success, but they do it intentionally. Some have found good success with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarmerie

cultus 6y ago
The RCMP isn't a great example for why militarized police are a good idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_the_Royal_Canadian_Mounted_Police https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
freeone3000 6y ago
RCMP are regular police everywhere but Ontario and Quebec. RCMP are closer in remit to the US Marshals, but also have the investigatory powers of the FBI. "Gendamarie" isn't inaccurate, but they're not militarized any greater or lesser than the SPVM.

mixedCase 6y ago

How does "protect and serve" not include removing dangerous, violent criminals from society?. To do so you need efficient weaponry and tactics that differ from conventional warfare. Does every police officer need to be equipped with such firepower? No, but police forces around the world facing these threats tend to have an intermediate (or more) group for dealing with threats that fall between petty thievery and terrorist organizations/nation-state level actors.

watwut 6y ago
Are you taking about actual real need in cities or a fantasy? It sounds flippant, but other counties don't need such ammo. The murder clearance rates are low, corruption seem to be persistent problem and actual police work does not actually seem to involve attacking actual super armed gangs.
- mixedCase 6y ago
  Of course I'm talking about an actual real need in cities, it's bewildering to me someone can't even see it as obvious. What country do you live in where there's no need for SWAT-like teams or a straight-up Gendarmerie?
  - watwut 6y ago
    SWAT-like teams are used rarely and they don't buy used arms from military. They are few in numbers. The issue with catching organized criminality is in investigation and dealing with corruption - including police corruption. The whole need to shoot out with them thing does not happen unless the local police is spectacularly bad.

ptero 6y ago

To me, the military should not be a part of any law enforcement for the citizens. In practical terms, "never" is too harsh, but the bar should be very high. When military gets involved in local matters there is a risk that it takes power and holds it for a long time. Sometimes a military junta might be the least bad option, but this is not a path the country should risk taking lightly. There were plenty of countries where gangs possessed and used automatic weapons, from Scandinavia to Germany, from Brazil to former Soviet Union. And that is not even touching Africa. A gang with machine guns is not a reason to ask military to take over law enforcement. My 2c.

baq 6y ago
what's the difference between military and police if both look the same and use the same weapons? what's stopping a rebel police chief from taking power in that case instead of some rebel general?