4 ms·

Military equipment is provided under the federal grants. It is only "free" in the sense that it isn't being paid for by local taxes. That means that local pol

Military equipment is provided under the federal grants. It is only "free" in the sense that it isn't being paid for by local taxes. That means that local police need to be defunded of federal funds as well as local funds.

giantg2 6y ago
It's not really federal funds either. It's surplus equiptment. Perhaps there's a more accurate term rather than defund.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Sounds like it would be more socially responsible to decommission it properly, rather than using untrained, irresponsible, and reckless police as a dumping ground for surplus equipment.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    What peices of this surplus equiptment are socially irresponsible? This equipment is defensive, administrative, or less lethal. If anything, it should provide more options before things turn lethal.
    - MereInterest 6y ago
      Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm. Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as it is a social signal that you come prepared to enact violence. Less lethal equipment promotes escalation, as it has a perception of being harmless and more acceptable to use in non-violent situations. The solution is to stop escalating, not to provide more methods by which to escalate while decreasing the risks involved in escalating. Also, you know, tanks. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-tanks-they-have-them https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-...
      - giantg2 6y ago
        "Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm." Yeah, and safer cars increase reckless driving for the same reason... "Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as it is a social signal that you come prepared to enact violence." It's being used in response to a suspect's social cue that they are there to commit violence. What should we do, just lay down? "Less lethal equipment promotes escalation, as it has a perception of being harmless and more acceptable to use in non-violent situations." This is false. The use of less lethal force is not viewed as harmless and any training will show that. That training will also contain use of force education.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm. I think there's a conversation about law enforcement and civil rights that people in the US need to have. But its awfully hard to have a real conversation when people don't want police to use lethal force and also don't want cops to have access to things that allow them to do their job with less reliance on lethal force. > Also, you know, tanks. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need- https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-... Actually those are not tanks. And the US military has no problem using .50 cal on personnel. Which are just nitpicks but they illustrate how hard it is to talk about these subjects when the people making the criticisms are so profoundly ignorant about the facts of the matter.
        MereInterest 6y ago
        Community trust and support is what lets police be able to police without lethal force. Treating it as a war between police and other citizens destroys that trust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        I can agree with that. How do you propose to deal with the criminal element?

giantg2 6y ago

It's not really federal funds either. It's surplus equiptment. Perhaps there's a more accurate term rather than defund.

MereInterest 6y ago
Sounds like it would be more socially responsible to decommission it properly, rather than using untrained, irresponsible, and reckless police as a dumping ground for surplus equipment.
- giantg2 6y ago
  What peices of this surplus equiptment are socially irresponsible? This equipment is defensive, administrative, or less lethal. If anything, it should provide more options before things turn lethal.
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm. Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as it is a social signal that you come prepared to enact violence. Less lethal equipment promotes escalation, as it has a perception of being harmless and more acceptable to use in non-violent situations. The solution is to stop escalating, not to provide more methods by which to escalate while decreasing the risks involved in escalating. Also, you know, tanks. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-tanks-they-have-them https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-...
    - giantg2 6y ago
      "Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm." Yeah, and safer cars increase reckless driving for the same reason... "Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as it is a social signal that you come prepared to enact violence." It's being used in response to a suspect's social cue that they are there to commit violence. What should we do, just lay down? "Less lethal equipment promotes escalation, as it has a perception of being harmless and more acceptable to use in non-violent situations." This is false. The use of less lethal force is not viewed as harmless and any training will show that. That training will also contain use of force education.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Defensive equipment promotes escalation, as there is less worry of harm. I think there's a conversation about law enforcement and civil rights that people in the US need to have. But its awfully hard to have a real conversation when people don't want police to use lethal force and also don't want cops to have access to things that allow them to do their job with less reliance on lethal force. > Also, you know, tanks. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need- https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/towns-dont-need-... Actually those are not tanks. And the US military has no problem using .50 cal on personnel. Which are just nitpicks but they illustrate how hard it is to talk about these subjects when the people making the criticisms are so profoundly ignorant about the facts of the matter.
      - MereInterest 6y ago
        Community trust and support is what lets police be able to police without lethal force. Treating it as a war between police and other citizens destroys that trust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        I can agree with that. How do you propose to deal with the criminal element?